CH. SHAHID SAEED, J. --- Through this civil revision, the petitioners assail the judgment dated 20.11.2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad who accepted the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 and set aside the judgment dated 23.6.2003 passed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Faisalabad whereby the contempt application of respondent No. 1 was dismissed resulting into allowing the contempt application and imposing fine on the petitioners to the tune of Rs.
2,00,000/-.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. The record highlights that respondent No. 1 earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction averring therein that the defendants were going to dig out a water-course in his land without any justification which suit was decreed in the year 1983. Respondent No. 1 again filed a suit for permanent injunction for the same cause of action wherein a restraint order dated 6.8.1995 was passed by the learned Trial Court which was later on extended. Thereafter, he filed a contempt petition against the petitioners and others that they have violated the restrained order dated 6.8.1995 and also the earlier decree of 1983 and have unlawfully and unauthorizedly demolished the house and tube-well of respondent No. 1 and also dug out a water-course by damaging the land of respondent No. 1 in presence of the restraint order dated 6.8.1995, therefore, they be proceeded against in accordance with the Contempt of Court. Both the cases were consolidated and ultimately dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 23.6.2003. The appeal preferred against the order to the extent of dismissal of contempt application was, however, allowed and the petitioners were fined to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- to be paid to the respondents.
4. Undoubtedly, a restraint order dated 06.08.1995 was passed wherein the learned Trial Court ordered that the property in dispute be not demolished. It was further stated in that order that it would have no effect on any judicial proceedings. It is worth mentioning here that the suit of respondent No. 1 was dismissed to the extent of defendant No. 5 on 4.12.2001 for non-deposit of process fee while respondent No. 1 himself deleted defendant No. 4 on 22.6.1999. So the contempt application was left against the petitioners only who were not party in the suit.
5. During the pendency of the suit, Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Samundri passed an order dated 22.8.1995 whereby he, taking cognizance of the order dated 6.8.1995 that it was not against Court proceedings, ordered for resumption of the land alongwith crops, trees and building, if any, holding that the disputed property was illegally occupied by respondent No 1.
6. This Court is of the considered view that in the restraint order dated 6.8.1995, exception was given to the Court proceedings which order was duly considered by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Samundri and then he passed the order dated 22.8.1995 for resumption of the land holding that respondent No. 1 was illegal occupant of the property in dispute. The petitioners have implemented the Court order dated 22.8.1995 and the Court proceedings/orders were not restrained in the restraint order dated 6.8.1995 passed by the learned Trial Court. So, they have not committed violation of the Court order. It is, also important to mention here that the petitioners were also not party in the suit and the Civil Court also ultimately dismissed the suit and the contempt application. The judgment passed by learned Appellate Court is not based on sound reasoning, therefore, it cannot sustain in the eye of law.
7. For the afore-mentioned reasons, this civil revision is allowed, the impugned judgment dated 20.11.2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad is set aside and the judgment dated 23.6.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, 1st Class, Faisalabad is hereby restored.