MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs NEBLET REPRESENTATIVE OF DOON SCHOOL OF PAKISTAN
This matter comprised two petitions for contempt of court filed by Muhammad Bashir against representatives of the Doon School of Pakistan for allegedly violating an interim stay order granted on 21-11-1993. The interim order directed that if a tube well existed on the disputed land, it should not be demolished or damaged by the respondents pending the hearing of the petition. The petitioner alleged that the respondents leveled the land and demolished the tube well despite the stay order. The Supreme Court of Pakistan found that the respondents had obtained possession of the property long before the contempt applications were submitted. Consequently, any alleged damage to the property likely occurred prior to the issuance of the stay order while the respondents were in lawful possession. The Court held that contempt petitions are not maintainable under such circumstances. Both contempt petitions were accordingly dismissed by the Court.
- Whether a contempt petition for violation of an interim stay order is maintainable when the alleged damage occurred before the stay order was issued?
- Whether contempt proceedings lie against a respondent who was in lawful possession of the property prior to the passage of an injunctive order?
ORDER
' FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---The above two petitions by Muhammad Bashir have been moved for contempt of Court for proceedings against the respondent Mr. Noble, representative of Don School of Pakistan and one other; namely, Proprietor of Don School Society of Pakistan registered, for having violated the stay order passed by this Court on 21-11-1993 passed by his Lordship Mr. Justice Saleem Akhter which reads as follows:-- "Mr. Amjad Hussain Syed, A.S.C.
' The learned counsel states that the petitioner has constructed tube well on the land and there is every danger of its being demolished. If the tube well is in existence on the disputed land, it shall not be demolished or damaged by the respondents > till the hearing of the petition."
2. It is alleged in the petition itself that before passing of the above order the respondents had illegally demolished the petitioner's house, cattle-shed, etc. Which were standing on the land in dispute and the respondents man-handled petitioners' wife and daughter where after he obtained the stay order, as the tube well was still standing in working condition. It is alleged that in spite of the order the respondents leveled the land and demolished the tube well.
3. On the face of the application it appears that petitioner had obtained possession of the property long before the applications were made and as such if any damage apparently caused to the property of the petitioner that might have been caused before the order in question was passed when they were in lawful possession of the land for which these applications are not maintainable.
Hence both the petitions are dismissed.