1. ' GULZAR AHMED, J.---It appears that this application was listed for orders for the first time on 7-2- 2006 but notice was not ordered for the reason that the Official Assignee sought time to file reply as well as to obtain report from the Board of Revenue and Mukhtiarkar concerned, Let notice of this application be issued. It is also noted that the application does not carry presentation date. The Assistant Registrar of the Branch is directed to explain as to why the date of presentation is not noted on the application. Such an explanation be submitted within a period of 10 days.
2. This is an application filed by the auction purchasers Muhammad and Saifullah Farooq alleging commission of Contempt of Court by Khalid Mahmood Soomro, Member (LU), Board of Revenue, Sindh. The alleged contemner has filed its counter affidavit today in Court copy of which has been supplied to the counsel for the auction purchaser. Learned A.A.-G. Argued that no contempt is committed and the application be rejected. On hearing the counsel for the parties and the Official Assignee, it appears that pursuant to the winding up order passed in this J.M. The property of the company was ordered to be sold by the Official Assignee who was appointed as an Official liquidator. The company property comprised of land being Survey Nos. 13, 14, 123, 156, 194, 72 and 230 measuring 234 Acres and Survey Nos. 163, 128, 169 and 256 measuring 134, 25 Acres in Deh Babar Band, Taluka Thana Bulla Khan, District Jamshoro. It appears that the sale of these properties in favour of the auction purchaser was confirmed by the Court on 30-8-2000. On 19-3-2005 the Official Assignee transferred these lands through a sale-deed in favour of the auction purchaser.
2. The auction purchaser applied for mutation when it was found that earlier entry in the record pertaining to these lands are not signed for the reason that mutation fee has not been paid. On 13- 9-1990 an order was passed by the Company Judge wherein it was declared that these lands belong to the company subject to payment of mutation fee. Learned Official Assignee states that the mutation fee was paid and the entries were signed. It further appears that the auction purchaser obtained the mutation of these lands through Form-VII dated 28-4-2005 and 30-6- 2005 ghat-wadeh form were issued. It also appears that the Assistant Commissioner, Kotri has raised objection that the land is not of the company. This objection was put in Court by Official Assignee through his reference which was rejected by order dated 26-9-2001. By this application the auction purchasers have alleged that the alleged contemner has published in the daily Dawn dated 6-2-2006 a show-cause notice addressed also to the auction purchaser in which the fact of these lands being sold through the Official Assignee through a registered sale-deed in favour of the auction purchasers is mentioned and further the notice notes as follows "Now therefore in exercise of the power vested under section 164 (1) and (4) of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967 I have initiated suo motu proceedings to examine the legality, correctness and propriety of the Entry No. 27 dated 16-1-1989 of V.F. VIIB and subsequent entries passed on this entry.
3. You are therefore called upon to show-cause as to why the entry No.27 of VF VIIB dated 16-1-1989 and subsequent entries made on the basis of this entry as shown above may not be cancelled/set aside being illegal and void."
4. ' The sale admittedly was made through the orders of this Court and the notice itself reflects such knowledge to its writer. Apparently the notice whereby the writer takes upon himself to examine illegality, correctness and propriety of entry more particularly made on the basis of sale made by this Court and proceedings to cancel/set aside such entry being illegal and void prima facie is a contempt of this Court. Consequently the following charge against the alleged contemner is framed.
5. "That you, Khalid Mahmood Soomro, Member (LU) Board of Revenue Sindh through publication of the show- cause notice in daily Dawn dated 6-2-2006 annexure-A to the application apparently have wilfully disobeyed/ignored the orders of this Court on the basis of which the property which is the subject-matter of the notice sold to the auction purchaser and thus made yourself liable to be proceeded against under the contempt jurisdiction of this Court.
6. At this stage, the alleged contemnor seeks pardon and states to withdraw the show-cause notice.
7. In the counter affidavit the alleged contemner has taken a stand that if he has violated the order then he seeks pardon from the Court, Such sort of a reply is merely evasive and does not furnish ground for giving pardon. The alleged contemner pleads guilty\o the charge framed above.
8. Looking at the facts and circumstances of the matter I sentence the alleged contemner till rising of this Court and cancel the show-cause notice published in Dawn dated 6-2-2006.