' GHULAM DASTAGIR A. SHAHANI, J.-Through C.M.A. No,652 of 2006 moved by the learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No,8, has prayed for lacking appropriate action under Article 204(2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, sections 2(a) and (b), 3, 5, and 6(c) of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, read with section 151, C.P.C. Respectively.
2. Brief facts are that, petitioner is a banking company, incorporated under the IDBP Ordinance, 1961, whereas respondents Nos.2 to 7 are the Directors of the respondent No,l and also Guarantors of the Guarantee it availed from the petitioner, whereas respondent No,8 is a pari passu charge holder of respondent No,l's immovable properties. However, Judicial Miscellaneous is filed with following prayers:--
(a) For attachment and sale of the properties, mentioned in paragraph 15 herein above for realization of petitioners' dues amounting to Rs,45,625,847.38 as on 3-4-2002 with contracted/com- mission/mark-up from 1-5-2002 till realization. The petitioners may also be granted all expenses incurred for attachment, maintenance and securing the properties so attached. Cost of the proceedings be also awarded.
(b) For issuance of an ad-interim order of attachment in respect of properties mentioned in para. 15 above, till disposal of petition under section 39(3) of the IDBP Ordinance, 1961, read with section 151, C.P.C.
(c) For appointment of Official Assignee for preparation of inventory of entire machinery/ equipment, installation, fixtures, fitting accessories, vehicles and all movable ^installed and lying on the properties mentioned in para. 15.
(d) Further relief as Court deems just, proper and beneficial to the petitioners in the circumstances and in the interest of justice.
(e) The petitioners reserve their rights of furnishing further particulars of other properties of the respondents, other than respondent No,8, in the event of failure to recover the amount claimed or due to the petitioners from properties which are sought to be attached and sold."
3. On receiving process, respondent No,l, as well as respondent N.8, respectively submitted their written statements, stating that, they are not liable to pay any thing nor proprietary of respondents Nos.l to 7 can sell the properties, in order to recover alleged dues of the petitioner. In fact there is no amount liable to pay to the petitioner, therefore, Guarantee should be discharged and treated as cancelled.
4. From record it appears that some documents with statement dated 28-2-2006 were submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, with the office, which remained pending without passing any order and on 5-6-2006 C.M.A. Was submitted by learned counsel appearing for the applicant/respondent No,8 (National Bank of Pakistan) for taking appropriate action against respondents Nos.l to 7 (alleged contemners) on the ground that, alleged contemners/respondents Nos.l to 7 placed on record a copy of resolution dated 18-2-2006 passed by the Board, as well as a letter of National Bank of Pakistan dated 5-3-2005, signed by two senior officials of the Bank, stating herein that, a settlement between National Bank of Pakistan and respondent No,l was under process and at the stage of necessary documentation, to the alleged settlement, National Bank of Pakistan and cancelled/returned the Guarantee given by the petitioner on behalf of alleged Contemner No,l. The said documents are fake, bogus and false statement has been placed in Court and alleged contemners have interrupted and prejudiced the process of law obstructed the due course of judicial proceedings. Therefore, appropriate action is necessary to be taken against them under contempt of Court proceedings. Learned counsel for applicant/respondent No,8 (National Bank of Pakistan) urged similar facts and grounds as disclosed in the contempt application. He urged that on the basis of statement submitted by the respondents legal action be taken and they be punished so far.
5. Preliminary objections were submitted with a prayer C.M. No,652 of 2006 may be dismissed, as no orders were passed by the Court which is said to have been disobeyed or violated by the respondents Nos.l to 7 etnd contempt notice is to be issued on alleged contemners directly by name. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondents Nos.l to 7 at the very outset without touching to the merits and de-merits insists for its disposal being not maintainable and referred a case of Arif Khan v. Federation of Pakistan (2002 CLC 601), as well as a case of Ghulam Sarwar v.
Ghulam Rabbani (PLD 1992 Peshawar 130), respectively. The relevant portion of the case of Arif Khan (supra) is reproduced herein below:- ' "Apart from the above another reason for the non-maintainability of the present application is the fact that the contemners have not been named specifically. The contemners have only been arraigned as "Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad" and "Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Karachi". It is a fundamental requirement of contempt proceedings that the contemners ought to be specifically named."
6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the relevant record and case-law referred above. From record it appears that some documents were submitted with the office by the learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos.l to 7 with statement dated 28-2-2006, and remained pending without passing any order, and on the basis of said statement, contempt application is submitted against all the respondents, without specifying their names, role assigned, particular material, allegations, so also particulars of disobedience, violations of any Court order, nature of contempt, which they are committed and responsible so for.
7. The law referred by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents Nos.l to 7, is so relevant and to the point, having mostly same and similar facts.
8. From the upshot of the above discussion and the law referred prima facie there is force in the contention of Mrs. Sofia Saeed Shah learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos.l to 7 as such, in my humble view contempt application in the present form and facts discussed above, is not maintainable and merits no consideration, as contemners have not been specifically named, which is mandatory requirement of law. So a responsible person or officer may be punished to the extent of his act which he has committed if any. Even otherwise no violation or disobedience of any particular order is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/respondent No,8, for which alleged contemners be punished, therefore, present circumstances does not justify contempt proceedings. With the result C.M.A. No,652 of 2006 is dismissed being not maintainable so also on merits.