' MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.---The petitioner seeks proceedings and ultimate punishment of respondents Nos. 1 to 8 in contempt of this Court. The ground thereof is that the respondents involved the petitioner in false, frivolous and vexatious litigation initiated under diverse jurisdictions before numerous forums. The petitioner also sought a direction for possession ante of the land, stay of various civil suits and cases before the Revenue Courts and Criminal Courts and also for transfer of the contempt proceedings before the subordinate Courts pending inter-se parties to this Court.
2. Heard.
3. The case of the petitioner is presented by his learned counsel is that Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and their late mother in application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Claimed entitlement to inherit estate of late Mian Muhammad Akram respectively as his son, daughter and widow and thus sought reversal of decree, dated 22-12-1998 in favour of the petitioner etc. The application was dismissed and so was the revision thereagainst. Constitution petition No.2425 of 1997 filed before this Court thereagainst was also dismissed by this Court through judgment, dated 14-3-2002. The petitioner contends that the matter thus became final butadmits that the petition for leave before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pending against the judgment, dated 14-3-2002.
4. It was also contended that against Mutation No.325 sanctioned on 10-8-1988 in favour of the petitioner and three others as collaterals of deceased Mian Muhammad Akram, late Maqsoodan Begum (mother of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2) sought review and the permission thereto was granted by DCO Lahore. Yet on petitioner's challenge, the order of review was suspended and the matter was adjourned sine die to enable the parties to obtain declaration of their rights on the civil side. In the meanwhile inheritance mutation was sanctioned in favour of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the appeal of the petitioner thereagainst was dismissed on the ground that case was pending in the Civil Court. However subsequently the mutation was restored. And that on decision of the Constitutional petition by this Court through above-referred judgment, dated 14-3-2002, the petitioner filed eviction petition against Respondents Nos. 5 to 8 (who were not parties in Writ Petition) from the agricultural land on which they were in cultivating possession as the tenants throughout since the life-time of the deceased. Further that a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction on the basis of an exchange deed was filed by Respondent No.8 to establish his title to the said agricultural land. The suits as well as appeal were dismissed. Nevertheless litigation between the parties on the revenue as well as civil side continued and a number of cases between them were presently pending in the Civil, Revenue and the Criminal Courts where before contempt proceedings for disobedience of injunctive orders and judgments were also being tried on initiation of the petitioner and the respondents.
5. The petitioner requested for stay of trial of all the above cases by this Court.
6. On notice, the respondents filed their respective replies.
7. All the respondents objected to the maintainability of the present Criminal original, concealment, misrepresentations, misuse of Court process and that of the law, breach of injunctive orders/judgments, fraud and active malpractices were alleged by all the respondents against the petitioner. It was specifically alleged that the petitioner tampered with the Revenue Record in connivance with the Revenue staff and sold the above land in 2005 thus losing the locus standi and cause to file the contempt petition.
8. The respondents in their replies also listed out cases, suits and proceedings pending against the petitioner etc. In various jurisdictions. It was also alleged that the petitioner obtained orders and judgments through misrepresentations, concealments and in the absence of the respondents.
9. DDO, (R) Lahore and EDO, Lahore being Respondents Nos. 9 and 10 in para 16 of their comments importantly asserted as under:-- "Admitted to the extent that the ejectment petition filed by the petitioner is pending in the Court of Deputy District Officer (Revenue) Lahore City and next date of hearing is fixed for 6-4-2006 whereas petitioner and others had already sold out the suit-land as per Revenue Record and the petitioner has not approached this Honourable Court with clean hands and concealed the facts therefore, the petitioner is no more owner of the suit-land according to the Revenue Record. Photo- copies of the Mutations Nos. 27-29-30-31-32-33-34-38 are attached herewith for kind perusal of this Honourable Court."
' A number of sale mutations were placed upon record.
10. Respondents Nos. 5 to 8 in their reply specifically contended that application of the petitioner to seek possession of the suit-land was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge Lahore through order, dated 21-12-2005. They also alleged manoeuvring of ex parte decrees, orders, judgments and proceedings by the petitioner with the object to harass and disposses them out of their legal possession of the land in question.
11. In view of the contentions herein raised by the parties, this Court does not find any merit in the present criminal original. The petitioner has not been able to show or prove the existence of necessary conditions for an action against the respondents in contempt jurisdiction by this Court.
' The main stay of the case of the petitioner is the judgment, dated 14-3-2002 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2425 of 1997 upholding the dismissal of application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Of Respondent No.I and her late mother. Both the parties however admit that petition for leave was pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan against this Court's judgment, dated 14-3-2002 wherefor claim of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to be heirs of deceased Mian Muhammad Akram was under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. The parties also admit against each other the pendency of numerous civil suits, cases and contempt petitions in various forms, wherein alleged questions of concealments, misrepresentations, fraud, active misuse of the Court process and that the law, questionable alienations, breach of injunctive orders and judgments, conspiratory connivance and acts of commission and omission of tho parties are under decision.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to showdisobedience or breach of orders of this Court by Respondents Nos. 5 to 8 who were not parties in Writ Petition No. 2425 of 1997 decided by this Court on 14-3-2002 nor in the trial or appeal proceedings relating thereto.
13. Contempt proceedings can neither be initiated at the desire or whim of a litigating party nor for any consideration that does not weigh with the Judge. The Court has to be satisfied as to whether the act of the respondents comes within the mischief of the law of contempt or otherwise amounting to interference with the administration of justice contempt in its legal connotation signifies disrespect to that which is entitled to a high legal regard. The very purpose of initiating contempt proceedings is the vindication of dignity and honour of the Court or that of the justice administration. The petitioner herein has not been able to show that any judgment, order or direction of this Court was flouted, disregarded or disobeyed by the respondents.
14. In the above circumstances, no valid justification exists for this Court to initiate action in contempt against the respondents or to grant any of the prayers made in the petition.
15. In view thereof, this Criminal original is dismissed.
Criminal original dismissed.