Pakistan Case Law← Search
2012 SCMR 969

MAQBOOL AHMAD and others vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others

Citation2012 SCMR 969
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Original Petition No,76 of 2010 Civil Appeal No,2103 of 2000
Date2012-04-12
Judge(s)Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Shakirullah Jan
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.---The instant petition under Order XXVII of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 read with Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 has been moved by two petitioners Maqbool Ahmad and Manzoor Ahmad with reference to their grievance regarding the violation of an interim order dated 4-5-2000 passed in C.P.L.A. No,912-L of 2000 (Civil Appeal No,2103 of 2000), which reads as follows:- "2. Subject to the petitioners furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector concerned for and in relation to the entitlement of Mst. Lal Sain as one of the widows of deceased porosities Reheat Ali, the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute shall not be disturbed. The proceedings before the "Revenue Officer concerned" are not stayed. It has been made clear that the security to be furnished as above, within a month from today i,e, by 3-6-2000, shall be available to the successful party in terms of the remand order by the High Court in Writ Petition No,1521 of 1983, which will in its own turn, be subject to the result of the main Petition/C.P.

No,912-L of 2000."

2. The assertion of the petitioners is that such interim order has been deliberately violated by the respondents Nos.1 to 14, as a result whereof mutations have been changed and they have been dispossessed from the land under litigation. zToday, by a separate judgment, for the detailed reasons recorded therein, we have dismissed both the appeals filed by the present petitioners being devoid of merits. In so far as the alleged violation of the interim order dated 4-5-2000 is concerned, prima facie, we do not find much substance in these allegations leveled in the petition, as the proceedings before the Revenue Court concerned were not stayed during the pendency of the two appeals.

4. In our opinion in the changed circumstances, no fruitful purpose will be served if such proceedings are initiated at this belated stage after lapse of more than a decade. Mores, when the question of violation of Court order, as alleged; is one, which is strictly between the Court and the alleged violator of such order. However, in case due to any wrongful act of respondents Nos.1 to 14 petitioners have suffered some damages, they can pursue their remedy in this regard before the proper forum, but strictly in accordance with law.

5. With the above observations, Criminal. Original Petition No,76IC of 2010 is also dismissed.

For educational and research use only β€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerΒ·PrivacyΒ·TermsΒ·Search