' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.--- Dr. Taj Malook petitioner has called in question the judgment/order, dated 15-1-2007 of Additional District Judge-III and order, dated 23-11-2006 of Civil Judge-IV, Bannu vide which the petitioner's application submitted under Order XXXIX, rule (2)(3), C.P.C. For contempt and disobedience of the order dated 29-6-2005, allegedly committed by the respondents in Civil Suit No,127/1 of 2004 was dismissed.
2. Briefly narrated the facts of the case are that Taj Malook filed a civil suit against Mst. Rambeel Khubana etc. In the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bannu which was marked to Civil Judge-IV, Bannu.
This suit was registered as Suit No,127/1, dated 1-0-2004. Annexed with the plaint was an application for issuance of a temporary injunction under the provision of Order XXXIX, rule (1), C.P.C. The learned Civil Judge vide order, dated 29-6-2005 accepted the application of the plaintiff/ petitioner and granted the ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit-land.
3. It was on 18-2-2006 that Dr. Taj Malook petitioner submitted an application under Order XXXIX, rule 2, sub-rule (3), C.P.C. For initiating Contempt of Court proceedings against Malik Riaz Khan and Malik Niaz Khan respondents herein to the effect that in spite of the prohibitory orders the respondents have violated the order of the Court and has raised construction over the suit-land.
The petitioner also submitted an application for the spot inspection through bailiff of the Court which was accepted and bailiff was deputed to inspect the spot. The respondents Malik Riaz Khan and other submitted replication wherein it was averred that they have never raised any construction on the suit-land. However, the Irrigation Department, Bannu is constructing a safety wall on Kachakot Canal with which the petitioner has got no concern.
' The learned trial Court framed two issues:---
(1) Whether order of this Court has been violated, if so, its effect?
(2) Relief.
4. The parties after producing their respective evidence as they wished to adduce and the learned trial Court Malik Muhammad Hussain, Civil Judge-VI, Bannu vide his order, dated 23-11-2006 came to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove any violation of the injunctive orders dismissed the petition.
5. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the District Judge, Bannu which came for hearing before Nasrullah Khan Gandapur, Additional District Judge, Bannu and who vide his order in Civil Appeal No,10/14, of 2006 decided on 15-1-2007 dismissed the appeal and maintained the order of the learned Civil Judge-VI, Bannu. Dr. Taj Malook petitioner has assailed the two concurrent orders of the Courts below and have come up in revision before this Court.
6. Dr. Taj Malook petitioner is present in person and he submitted detailed written arguments which were perused and placed on file.
7. In the written arguments it was averred that the respondents have committed a gross contempt of Court by violating the order of the Civil Judge, dated 29-6-2005. It was also argued that there was overwhelming evidence on the record to prove the alleged contempt and thus, the respondents were liable to be punished under the provisions of Order XXXVII, rules 2 and 3, C.P.C.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the facts and legal position involved in the present case. Firstly perusal of the record reveals that no violation of the said order has been proved on the data available on the record and secondly, the injunctive order in this case was passed on 29-6- 2005 and under the law, in view, of Order XXXIX, rule 2-B, C.P.C. The statutory period of the injunctive order is six months or disposal of the suit whatever first occurs or if the same is extended by the trial Court with reasons to be communicated to the High Court. The provisions of Order XXXIX, rule 2-B, C.P.C. Is reproduced D below for the sake of convenience:--- "(2-B). The order of injunction made under rule 1 or 2 after hearing the parties or after notice to the defendant shall cease to have effect on the expiration of six months unless extended by the Court after hearing the parties again and for reasons to be recorded for such extension: ' Provided that report of such extension shall be submitted to the High Court."
9. The above reproduction of the provision of law would show that :he maximum period for an interim injunction is six months or disposal )f the suit which ever first occurs or if the same is extended by the trial Court with reasons. The interim order in this case was passed on Z9-6-2005 which remains for six months in the field and on 29-12-2005 t expired automatically. Perusal of the record showed that the application for alleged contempt was moved on 18-2-2006 and the allegations are that the respondents are constructing the Abadi in the suit-and. It is important to mention that on the said date there was no substantive order in the field nor the same had been extended by the trial Court. The law reproduced above is very clear and also as held in the ace of Syed M. Shah Jehan Shah and others v. Fazale Rehman and 45 thers reported in 1996 CLC 1572 and in the case of Gul Haider v. Dr. Ksad Zia reported in 2003 YLR 913 that the ad interim order passed order Order XXXIX, rule 1, C.P.C. Expires after six months.
'So neither the injunctive order was existing at the time of loving the contempt of Court application by the petitioner nor the alleged violation has been proved on the record of the case.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above the orders of the two Courts below are just, based on equity and are in consonance with the established principles of appreciation of evidence which calls for in interference.
11. Hence this revision petition fails which is dismissed in imine. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned District Judge, Bannu for onward entrustment to Civil Judge-VI, Bannu to place it on he record of Suit No,21/6 instituted on 18-2-2006 and decided on 3-11-2006.