Cr.Misc.Application No.87 of 2006.
Fakir Muhd and 5 ors . . . . . ..
.Applicants.
v/s
Muhd Yousif Memon and another. . . . Respondents.
1.For orders on CMA 3898/08.
2.For Katcha peshi.
-
02.04.2009. Mr.Noor Hassan Malik, advocate for the
applicants.
Mr.Ali Haider State counsel
Muhammad Yousif respondent No.1 in person.
-
ARSHAD NOOR KHAN,J.- This
application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C has been filed by the applicants
challenging the order passed by learned IInd Senior Civil Judge, Sukkur dated
13.3.2006 whereby dismissed the application filed by the applicants.
The facts leading to the present
application in brief are that the respondent Muhammad Yousif filed Civil Suit
No.80/1989 before the learned IInd Senior Civil Judge, Sukkur for Declaration
and Injunction against one Mst. Rafia Begum wherein, the status-quo was ordered
to be maintained by the parties, passed by the learned trial Court on
30.4.1989. After about one and half year from the date of passing the
status-quo order, the respondent NO.1 filed contempt application under order 39
Rule 2 and 3, CPC, which could not be finally decided when the suit was decided
by trial Court whereby the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent No.1.
Against such decree passed by the learned trial Court, the said Mst.Rafia Begum
filed Civil Appeal No.12/2000 before the learned District Judge, which was
entrusted to learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, who after hearing of the
learned counsel for the parties, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment
and decree passed by the Civil Court, against which, the respondent No.1 filed
Civil Revision No.18/2001 before this Court, which was heard and decided vide
order of this Court dated 21.6.2002 whereby the revision application was
dismissed thereby maintaining judgement and decree passed by the learned IIIrd
Additional District Judge and while dismissing revision application, this Court
also imposed cost of Rs.20,000/- on the respondent No.1. Against the dismissal
of the said revision application, the respondent No.1 filed C.No.832-K of 2002
before the Honourable Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 09.02.2004 in
default. After exhausting the remedy,
the respondent No.1 moved to the trial Court and pressed his application for
contempt of Court pending against the alleged contemners, who were not party to
the suit and the learned trial Court vide order dated 07.04.2004 took the
cognizance of the matter and framed the issue regarding alleged violation of the status-quo dated
30.4.1989. The applicants filed application under Section 151, CPC for
recalling of the order dated 07-04-04 which has been dismissed; hence the
present application.
I have heard Mr.Noor Hassan Malik, learned
counsel for the applicants, Mr.Ali Haider learned State counsel and respondent
No.1 Muhammad Yousif in person.
The learned counsel for the applicants
vehemently contended that after dismissal of the civil litigation finally,
there was hardly any ground available for the respondent No.1 to press contempt
of Court application, which he did not pursued for more than 12/13 years and
that applicants, who have allegedly violated the order of the Court, were not
the party to the original proceedings and that the respondent No.1 has also
lodged the FIR against the same crime, which was also disposed off against him,
as such the learned lower Court had no power to reopen the case, which has been
finally decided by this Court as well as by the Honourable Supreme Court.
The learned State counsel candidly
admitted that after passing of the final order, the interim order merged in the
final order, therefore, it could not be said that the order regarding the
status-quo was in continuance so as to
take the cognizance of the matter. He is also of the view that instead of
application under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C, the applicants have to file
constitutional petition and this Court has all the powers to convert this
application into the constitutional petition.
Muhammad Yousif respondent No.1 vehemently
opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and has
contended that the violation of the order of this Court, was made by the
applicants and that the suit has not been finally disposed off as his
application for restoration is pending adjudication before the Honourable
Supreme Court. According to him, the application under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C is
not maintainable as the proceedings were initiated in civil proceedings,
therefore, the applicants ought to had move to the District Court in civil
revision and that order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, thereby
taking cognizance of the matter, is legal and does not suffer from any
infirmity.
I have considered the arguments advanced
on behalf of the parties and have gone through the material available before
me.
Admittedly the suit for declaration and
injunction filed by the respondent No.1, was dismissed by the learned IIIrd
Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 15.12.2000, as such,
the suit was finally disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge and
against his judgement and decree, the revision was preferred before this Court
being No.18/2001, which also culminated against respondent No.1 vide order of
this Court dated 21.6.2002 and this Court also imposed cost of Rs.20,000/-
against the respondent No.1 while dismissing his revision application. There
could be, therefore, no cavil to the proposition that the suit filed by the
respondent No.1, was finally disposed off by the Court and it is settled principle
of law that all the interim orders passed during the pendency of the suit
merged in the final order, as such status-quo if any granted by the Civil Court also merged in the final judgement
and decree.
The respondent No.1 after filing of
alleged contempt application against the applicants, did not pursue the same
for the years together and the conduct of the respondent No.1, shows that in fact, there was no violation of the
order passed by the trial Court and he had filed such application for certain
extraneous consideration, therefore, he did not pursue the said application
before the trial Court before passing the judgement and decree. Even otherwise,
the record does not speak that the status-quo allegedly passed on 30.04.1989 by
Civil Court, was for date to date or was granted till disposal of the suit, any
how, the said status-quo was no more in field at the time when on 07.4.2004
when the learned Senior Civil Judge took the cognizance of the matter.
It is not disputed by the respondent No.1
in his affidavit in support of contempt application that he filed alleged
contempt application after one and half year from the date of alleged contempt.
His affidavit to contempt application
is self explanatory which shows that he exhausted all the remedies out side the
Court including the registration of FIR
for the same alleged offence, but on independent enquiry by the police, the
allegations leveled by the respondent No.1 were proved false therefore the FIR
was disposed off in ‘C’ Class. He also repeatedly approached to the police as
well as political figures but on every corner, he failed in his efforts which
shows that there was no substance in his allegations regarding his alleged
dispossession. The applicants were not party to the suit and it has not come on
record that the applicants were served with the notice of status-quo and, in
case, if the applicant was illegally dispossessed by the alleged contemners,
why he did not apply before the trial Court for his reinduction in possession of the property. In this view of the
matter lodging of the FIR against the culprits, who took the law in their own
hand was the appropriate remedy, which in fact, the respondent No.1 availed by
lodging separate FIR but his FIR did
not find any substance and was disposed off in ‘C’ Class by the competent
Court.
The respondent No.1 stressed that the
proceedings initiated by him, were in civil proceedings and against the order passed by the learned Senior Civil
Judge, the civil revision was competent before the District Court and criminal
application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C, was not maintainable before this Court. The contention advanced
by him seems not to be reasonable and plausible for the reason that the
contempt proceedings are criminal in nature because conviction and sentence is
provided under Order 39 Rule 2 and 3, and where-ever physical conviction is
provided in a provisions of law or statue
that proceedings would be deemed as criminal or semi criminal in nature
and the provisions of Cr.P.C could also be applied to those criminal or semi criminal proceedings, therefore the
application filed under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C before this Court, could not be
treated as incompetent. Even otherwise, this Court has ample powers to convert
the application under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C into a constitutional petition if
the propriety demands.
For all the aforesaid reasons and
circumstances, I find that the learned trial Court was not competent to take
the cognizance of the matter after final adjudication of the case between the
parties and the alleged status-quo merged in the final judgment and decree
therefore at the time of taking cognizance by the learned trial Court, it was
non-existence in the eye of law. The application, is therefore, allowed and the
orders impugned herein are set aside.
JUDGE
Akber.
Approved for reporting.