' SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.-- Briefly stated the facts of the ease are that the respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner which was disposed of ofi the basis of undertaking of the petitioner that he will not dispossess the respondent forcibly. The respondent moved an application before the trial Court, seeking therein the proceedings against the petitioner for contempt of Court who statedly took possession of Ihata on 18-2-2000 at about 4-30 p.m. The application was resisted by the petitioner and out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, two issues were framed and the parties led their evidence. The trial Court convicted the petitioner for six months with a fine of Rs,5,000 under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), section 94 and section 151, C.P.C. Vide order dated 31-3-2004. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order, the appellate Court vide order dated 6-4-2.005 upheld the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent has filed the application with mala tide intention as the criminal litigation is pending between the petitioner and the respondents. He further states that the report of the local commission, which was appointed at the request of the respondent reveals that the petitioner was in possession of the part of the disputed premises. The story of taking forcible possession was neither possible nor correct. He lastly contends that the proceedings before the courts below are without jurisdiction. The contempt proceedings by the Courts below under O. XXXIX, R. 2(3), section 94 and section 151, C.P.C. Can only be initiated when the contempt is committed in the face of the Court or its orders were disobeyed or disrespected as envisaged in section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the cases of Yar Muhammad v. The State (1990 PCr.LJ 1736) and Said Muhammad v.
Sultan Ahmad and others (2000 CLC 387).
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent fully supported the impugned judgment.
He states that the petitioner has committed contempt which fact is apparent from the evidence and the courts below have rightly convicted the petitioner.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record.
5. This Court in the case of Said Muhammad (supra) has held as under:- "It is manifestly clear from the provisions of section 3 and subsection (4) of section 5 of Contempt of Court Act and section 228, P.P.C. That the subordinate courts could punish for contempt of Court only where the contempt was committed in the face of the Court or its orders were disobeyed or disrespected. "
6. Following the dictum laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, the instant revision petition is accepted, the order impugned is set aside and the petitioner is ordered to be set at free.