Relevant Case Law and Brief Summary:

1. 2019 mld 238 - Peshawar High Court - Mir Afzal Vs Mohammed Fareed: The case
held that contempt proceedings related to the violation of court decrees are within the
jurisdiction of the High Court, and subordinate courts cannot initiate such proceedings. It
confirmed the dismissal of the execution petition in lower courts.
2. Said Muhammad v. Sultan Ahmad and 7 others (2000 CLC 387): This case reiterates
that only the High Court has the jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings against any
person who has allegedly committed contempt of any civil court, in accordance with the
Contempt of Court Ordinance.
3. Yar Muhammad v. The State (1990 PCr.LJ 1736): This case further emphasizes that
subordinate courts do not have jurisdiction to initiate action for contempt of court under
the Contempt of Court Ordinance.
4. Gh. Muhammad Ramzan v. The State and 2 others (1982 PCr.LJ 1061): This case
establishes that the jurisdiction to initiate contempt of court proceedings for violation of
court decrees always vests in the High Court.

DETAILED CASE SYNOPSIS AND HIGHLIGHTED JUDGMENTS:

CASE 1: 2019 mld 238 - Peshawar High Court - Mir Afzal Vs Mohammed Fareed

Case Synopsis:

● The petitioner had initially filed a suit for permanent injunction in 1991, which was
decreed in his favor in 2003.
● Subsequently, the petitioner faced issues with the enforcement of the decree, claiming
dispossession from the property.
● The execution petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed, and this decision was
upheld in higher courts.
● The petitioner then filed a review petition, which was later withdrawn with permission to
file a fresh execution petition.
● The petitioner filed a fresh execution petition seeking enforcement of the decree and
restoration of the property.
Petitioner's Arguments:

● The petitioner argued that the respondents had violated the decree by dispossessing
him from the property.
● The petitioner sought the initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for
their alleged violation of the court's decree.
● The petitioner contended that the contempt proceedings should be maintained, and the
respondents should be held accountable for their actions.
Respondent's Arguments:

● The respondents raised objections to the maintainability of the petitioner's contempt

● The court dismissed the petitioner's petition, upholding the decision of the revisional
court.
● It held that contempt proceedings for violation of court decrees fall under the jurisdiction
of the High Court, and the subordinate court could not initiate such proceedings.
● The court affirmed that the execution petition had been rightly dismissed as not
maintainable in the lower courts.

Case 2: Said Muhammad v. Sultan Ahmad and 7 others (2000 CLC 387)

Case Synopsis:

● The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents in the Court
of Civil Judge, Gujranwala.
● The petitioner claimed ownership of a house constructed on a specific piece of land and
alleged threats from the respondents, who were part of a group known for land grabbing.
● The respondents initially provided an undertaking in court not to dispossess or dismantle
the petitioner's house.
● Subsequently, the respondents violated their commitment by dismantling the petitioner's
wall.

Petitioner's Arguments:

● The petitioner filed an application under Order 39, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. in the Civil Court.
● The respondents offered to be punished if the petitioner affirmed on oath that they had
violated their commitment, which the petitioner accepted.
● Based on the petitioner's statement, the trial Court convicted the respondents with a two-
month sentence and a fine of Rs. 200.

Respondent's Arguments:

● The respondents appealed their conviction, contending that no injunction order was
issued by the trial Court.
 ● They argued that Order 39, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. did not apply to the case.
● The respondents also claimed that the fine sentence was not provided for in Order 39,
Rule 2(3), C.P.C.
● They asserted that the provisions of the Oath Act were not applicable since not all
respondents were present when the oath offer was made.

Judgment:

● The Court noted that no injunctive order under Order 39, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. had been
issued by the trial Court.
● The respondents' offer, which the petitioner accepted through an oath, constituted a
binding commitment.
● While the case did not fall under Order 39, Rule 2(3), C.P.C., it amounted to contempt of
court under the Contempt of Court Act, 1976.
● The Court cited Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act, which defines contempt of court,
and stated that the respondents had committed contempt by disregarding their
commitment made in court.
● The learned Additional Advocate-General argued that the Civil Judge lacked jurisdiction
to convict the petitioner under the Contempt of Court Act.
● Section 5 of the Contempt of Court Act was referred to, highlighting that subordinate
courts can punish for contempt of court only in specific circumstances outlined in Section
228 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.).
● The Court held that the Civil Judge did not have jurisdiction to try the contempt petition
and directed a reference to the High Court.

Case 3: Yar Muhammad v. The State (1990 PCr.LJ 1736):

Case Synopsis:

● The applicant, Yar Muhammad, worked as a Taluka Reporter for the Sindhi daily "Awami
Awaz" in Karachi.
● On 29-9-1989, Yar Muhammad published a news item in the newspaper, reporting an
application made to the High Court by one Chutoo Zauran alleging that Civil Judge
Manzoor Memon of Mirpur Bhathero had detained him by abusing his authority.
● The news mentioned that the High Court had asked the Sessions Judge, Thatta, to
inquire into the matter.

Petitioner's Arguments:

● Yar Muhammad argued that he published the news item based on information received
from Chutoo Zauran and had even obtained a photostat copy of the application from
him.
● He contended that he did not commit any contempt of court by publishing the news and
that the judgment of conviction was erroneous.
 ● Yar Muhammad claimed that the Civil Judge had jurisdiction to convict him only under
Section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.) if contempt was committed in the
judge's presence.
● He argued that the judgment was without jurisdiction.

Respondent's Arguments:

● The State, represented by Mr. Hayat Qureshi, contended that there was no contempt in
this case and that the Civil Judge's action was without jurisdiction.
● The State supported the quashment application, asserting that the order convicting the
applicant should be quashed.

Judgment:

● The judgment referred to Section 228 of the P.P.C. and Section 5 of the Contempt of
Court Act, 1976, to determine jurisdiction.
● It noted that Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act defines "Contempt of Court" and
provided exceptions that do not constitute contempt, including fair comments and true
averments made in good faith.
● The judgment concluded that the news item published by the applicant did not fall under
the definition of contempt of court as it was not intended to undermine the dignity of the
court or bring the authority of the law into disrespect.
● The judgment emphasized that the Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to convict the
applicant for contempt based on the published news item.
● Sections 90 and 91, under which the applicant was convicted, did not exist in the
Contempt of Court Act, 1976, making the judgment illegal and without jurisdiction.
● As a result, the quashment application was allowed, and the judgment of conviction was
set aside. The fine, if paid, was to be refunded to the applicant.

Case 4: Gh. Muhammad Ramzan v. The State and 2 others (1982 PCr.LJ 1061

Case Synopsis:

● The petitioner filed a petition under Sections 3 and 5 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976,
against respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
● Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 had filed a civil suit seeking partial cancellation of sale-
deeds, declaration, and injunction (Suit No. 84/81) in the Court of First Senior Civil
Judge, Hyderabad.

Petitioner's Arguments:

● The petitioner alleged that respondents Nos. 2 and 3, despite a court order maintaining
the status quo, illegally and unlawfully dispossessed the petitioner from a property.
 ● The petitioner claimed that this act of dispossession was in violation of the
injunction/status quo order of the Court.
● The petitioner argued that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 willfully disregarded the Court's
authority and intentionally violated its order.
● Initially, the petitioner filed a contempt petition, but later, in view of a Supreme Court
decision (P L D 1966 S C 802), decided not to press the contempt petition, as there was
an alternative remedy under Order XXXIX, Rule 2 (3) (4) of the Civil Procedure Code
(C.P.C.).
● The petitioner withdrew the application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2 (3) (4) of the C.P.C.
Respondent's Arguments:

● The advocate for the respondents submitted that the contempt petition was not
maintainable as per the Supreme Court decision in P L D 1966 S C 802.
● The petitioner, in view of the mentioned Supreme Court decision, did not press the
contempt petition and withdrew the application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2 (3) (4) of the
C.P.C.
Judgment:

● The Court noted that the petitioner's attention was not drawn to the Supreme Court
decision (P L D 1966 S C 802) at the time of admission of the contempt petition.
● In light of the Supreme Court decision, the Court found that the present contempt
petition was not maintainable.
● The judgment clarified that contempt proceedings for the violation of court orders, in this
case, the injunction, fall under the jurisdiction of the High Court or Supreme Court only.
● The contempt petition was dismissed as not maintainable, and the contempt notices
issued to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were withdrawn.
● With the consent of the advocates of both parties, the Court directed the petitioner to file
a fresh application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2 (3) (4) of the C.P.C. before the trial Court
for the alleged breach of the status quo order.
● The Court emphasized that the fresh application should be disposed of on its merits,
following due legal procedures and providing full opportunities for both parties to contest
it.