Abdul Hameed Dogar, HCJ.--This appeal with leave of this Court is directed against order dated 30.1.2008 passed by learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby contempt notices were issued to appellants.
2. Briefly stated facts are that suit for specific performance titled "Malik Muhammad Zulfiqar vs. Sheikh Muhammad Ayuh etc." was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 15.9.2006 against which RFA No, 583 of 2006 was filed before learned Lahore High Court, Lahore wherein vide order dated 30.11.2006 respondents were restrained from alienating the suit properly in any manner whatsoever and transferring the possession through any means. However,, the said RFA same was withdrawn on 14.6.2007. Similarly another suit for specific performance titled "Muhammad Riaz etc. vs. Sheikh Muhammad Ayub etc." was filed in which status quo order was passed on 23.11.2006 which order was recalled on 15.12.2006. Subsequently a sale-deed dated 16.12.2006 was executed by Respondents No, 2, 6-14 in favour of Respondent No,
3. Respondent No, 1 Zahid Mahmood who allegedly purchased the property filed Criminal Original No, 76/C of 20 )7 before learned Lahore High Court, Lahore in which not only the appellants but also the law firm was involved alleging that the same had played active role in the sale of disputed property and execution of sale-deed in gross violation of the injunction granted by the Hon'ble Court. The contempt petition came up for hearing on 05.12.2007 when notices were issued to petitioners. That an application for dismissal of the criminal original was moved by petitioners wherein notices were issued to the Respondent No, 1.
In order to prolong the matter, an almost identical contempt Petitioner No, 2/C of 2008 titled Shaikh Ijaz Ahmad, vs. Mst. Shaheed Khan was also filed against the same parties. The matters came up for hearing on 30.1.2008 when fresh notices were issued to the un-served respondents.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that suit titled Malik Muhammad Zulfiqar v.
Sheikh Muhammad Ayub etc. was dismissed on 15.9.2006 which order was assailed through RFA No, 583 of 2006 before learned Lahore High Court wherein on 30.11.2006 an order was passed whereby respondents were restrained from alienating the property in any manner. It is further contended that the above RFA was withdrawn on 14.6.2007. According to him, Respondent No, 1 filed contempt petition in which Appellant No, 2 Malik Ahmad Qayyum and Justice (R) Malik Muhammad Qayyum were arrayed as respondents alleging that they have violated status quo order dated 30.11.2006. He further contended that they have been maliciously impleaded as respondents with ulterior motive. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that learned High Court was not supposed to issue notice in contempt petition to the appellants. He further contended that Respondent No, 1 namely, Zahid Mahmood was not party in the suit in which status: quo order was passed, as such has no locus standi to file contempt petition.
4. On the other band learned counsel for Respondent No, 1 controverted above contentions and contended Respondent No, 1 was aggrieved by the alleged sale in violation of the interim injunction granted by learned Lahore High Court as he has interest in the subject property and suffered irreparable loss. He further contended that suit of Respondent No, 1 with regard of same property is pending before learned Civil Court and the appellants had the knowledge about the pendency of the suit, as such the contempt petition was competently filed. He further contended that appellants had filed similar application before learned High Court which is pending adjudication and under such circumstances the matter cannot be agitated before this Court.
5. We leave considered the contentions raised at the bar a have also gone through the material brought on record in minute particulars. Admittedly, the sale-deed was executed on 16.12.2006 in favour of Respondent No, 3 M/s Asian Gas (Pvt.) Ltd. by Respondents No, 2, 6 to 14 when no stay order was in the field. Moreover, appellants were not party in the transaction as such contempt petition could not have been filed against them and learned High Court has erred in issuing notices to them and the lawyers who remained associated with the transaction of sale. Even otherwise Respondent No, 1 has no locus standi to file contempt petition as he has no order in his favour.
Under sub rule (3) of Rule 2 of Order XXXIX no one can be held guilty of the disobedience of an order except the person to whom the order is directed and the Court has no jurisdiction to initiate contempt of Court proceedings against whom no order is made. Therefore, we of the view that contempt petition against appellants was not maintainable.
6. In view of above, the impugned order dated 30.1.2008 passed by learned Lahore High Court in Criminal Original No, 76-C of 2007 is set aside. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed with costs.