' DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Through this petition for contempt of court, the petitioner seeks that respondents be prosecuted for contempt of court because despite of service of notice of status quo order on respondent No,6 it was disregarded at a later stage.
2. This petition was taken up for hearing on 27-5-2011, however, due to the point of law involved, learned counsel sought time to make research.
' Today, the learned counsel relied on the following case-law:--
(1) 2000 M LD 1755
(2) PLD 1997 Karachi 579.
3. In the former case, injunction order was issued, however, on the strength of the newly added proviso, providing maximum period of six months during which such order shall remain in the field unless specifically extended and because the injunction order was not extended specifically and the defence wanted to take advantage of that by contending that it had come to an end by operation of law and being irregular, therefore, the defendants could not be prosecuted nor the injunction order could be enforced. The case cited lays down almost a different proposition of law and has dealt with it in a different manner which is not attracted to the present case. Similarly, the second case cited at the bar was dealt with under the then Sindh Chief Court Rules which shall have overriding effect on the provision of Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 4, C.P.C. Because such rules framed by the High Court are due to the delegation of such powers by the relevant Article of the Constitution, therefore, the rules are placed on high pedestal and should have super imposing effect and because the rules were not fixing a life time for injunction order, therefore, it was pressed into service.
4. In the instant case, the status quo order was passed on 29-12-2010 and it was directed that it shall be maintained till next date.
5. On 28-1-2011 (the next date) the case came up for, hearing, however, the status quo order was not extended, therefore, no inference can be drawn that it was impliedly extended because if such interpretation is placed on the order then on the other hand the respondents would face a penalty which includes imprisonment. The law on this score is well settled that when two interpretations of an order are possible then the one carrying penal consequences shall not be adopted.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, this petition is dismissed, however, as was stated at the bar, the petitioner has already filed an application for impleadment of the new vendee and the court would consider the principle laid down by section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act (lis pendens) in the given circumstances.