' MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, J.---Through the instant petition for leave to appeal the petitioners call in question the judgment of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court dated 16th May, 2009 whereby Civil Appeal No. 309 of 2006 has been dismissed.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of present petition for leave to appeal are that during the pendency of civil suit, the petitioners moved an application for violation of stay order issued by the Civil Judge, Mirpur, on 2nd December, 2004. After seeking objections and necessary proceedings the Civil Judge dismissed the application on 9th December, 2005 on the ground that the petitioners failed to prove the violation. An appeal before the District Judge also failed. The petitioners filed an appeal in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court. A learned single Judge in the High Court dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment on 16th May, 2009.
3. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the Civil Judge, Mirpur, issued the stay order restraining the defendants from interfering in the land. The stay order was served. Upon the defendants. After service of the stay order, the defendants collected the material for construction on the suit-land. The petitioners proved with cogent evidence the violation of the stay order. He contended that original stay order which was served upon the defendants was inadvertently attached with some other file in the Court and it was not available at the time of evidence. After the judgment of Civil Judge, the petitioners were successful in tracing. Out the said stay order in another file of the trial Court. He placed a copy of the stay order in the Court of District Judge during the pendency of appeal. The District Judge as well as the High Court has not considered the said document. From the said document, the service of stay order upon the defendants is proved.
He contended that in the interest of justice, the judgment has to be passed after considering the document and after remanding the case, the petitioners be provided an opportunity for proving their case. It is a questiop of law. He requested for grant of leave.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record; The case of the petitioners is that they filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge and an interim injunction for maintaining the status quo was issued by the trial Court and the defendants were directed that they shall refrain from dumping the earth in the way and refrain from creating any hurdle in the public way. They claimed that the defendants collected stones in the shape of heap in the way due to which an hurdle has been created in the way of the petitioners. They have wilfully violated the stay order. The trial Court sought objections and framed the issues. The parties were directed to produce evidence. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove violation of stay order. The trial Court further observed that the petitioners have alleged that the, stay order was issued on 16th November, 2002. From the record no stay order is shown to have been issued on this date nor the date of hearing in the original case was fixed.
5. The record reveals that during the pendency of the appeal in the Court of District Judge, the petitioners presented a certified copy of the stay order. The District Judge dismissed the appeal and refused to consider the document because it was not a part of the record of trial Court.
Similarly, the High Court dismissed the appeal. A perusal of the record reveals that although the petitioners alleged the violation of stay order, but they failed to prove that any stay order was issued and served upon the respondents-defendants. The petitioners were provided ample opportunity to prove their case but they failed to prove their case to the effect that the stay order was issued and served upon the respondents. It may be observed that a person who disobeys the injunction order can be proceeded against for contempt and action can also be taken against him under Order XXXIX; Rule 2, C.P.C. An order of injunction becomes operative the moment it is served upon a respondent and he is made aware of the order. It was enjoined upon the Petitioners to prove from the record that the stay order was served upon the respondents. The petitioners failed to prove this fact, therefore, the Courts below were justified in dismissing the application.
6. As regards the placing of a certified copy of the stay order whereby service was effected upon the respondents during the pendency of the appeal in the Court of District Judge, the copy cannot be produced and considered without due process. The petitioners have to prove their case through reliable evidence in the trial Court and if they fail to produce any document in the trial Court, then during the pendency of appeal, they had an opportunity to move an application under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C., for producing the document as an additional evidence. The petitioners have not moved any application for presenting the document as additional evidence. They presented the document in the Court without any application that this document may be considered. Any document presented in the Court without due process of law cannot be considered in the appeal.
' There is no illegality in the judgment of the High Court. No legal question is involved in the petition for leave to appeal. Leave cannot be granted only to give false hopes to the petitioners. The petition has no substance, it is hereby dismissed with no order as to the costs.