This revision petition has been directed against the judgment/order dated 6.3.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judye-V, Nowshera whereby the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs for initiating contempt of Court proceedings against Akhlaq Hussain Siddiqui respondent/defendant has been dismissed being not maintainable.
2. Facts of the case precisely are that the petitioners/plaintiffs instituted a suit against Bahadur Khan and others for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that they are owners, co- sharers and in possession of the suit property measuring 02-kanal 13-marla comprising of Khasra No, 230, Khata No, 52/112 as per jamabandi for the year, 2008-09 situated at Mauza Ali Baig being legal heirs of Raza Khan their predecessor-in-interest and the defendants/respondents are making construction in it illegally and without their permission. Alongwith the plaint they also filed an application for the grant of temporary injunction requesting therein to restrain the defendants from raising construction on the disputed Khasra number. The said application was resisted by respondents and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Civil Judge-I, Nowshera vide his order dated 16.11.2012 dismissed the said application. Feeling aggrieved from the above order of the trial Court, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Add. District Judge-V, Nowshera who vide order dated 22.12.2012 accepted the appeal and while set aside the impugned order dated 16.11.2012 of the trial Court, allowed the application for grant of ad-interim injunction as prayed for.
3. On 3.1.2013, the petitioners filed an application against the respondents for initiating contempt of Court proceedings on the ground that he has violated the status quo order dated 22.12.2012 and has not stopped the construction work over the suit property. The said application was resisted by the respondents and ultimately the same was dismissed vide order dated 6.3.2013 which is impugned herein.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have also perused the impugned judgment/order.
5. It is evident from the material placed on file that the learned Additional District Judge-V, Nowshera vide judgment/order dated 22/12/2012 accepted the appeal of the petitioner and while setting aside the order of the trial Court, allowed their application for temporary injunction.
Thereafter the petitioners submitted an application for contempt of Court against the respondent for violation. of the order dated 22.12.2012.
6. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is complete code providing provision and mechanism for solution of issues arising during the trial of the suits/appeals/revisions etc. These provisions confer powers and jurisdiction upon the Courts, for seeking relief which can be sought and remedy thereof are embodied therein. Likewise, in the case of noncompliance of any order/failure to comply with order of the Court who passed during the trial can be remedied/penalized under the relevant provisions of Civil Procedure Code. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent has violated the order dated 22.12.2012 because report of the bailiff regarding continuance of the construction on the suit khasra number by the respondent has been turned down by the Court who issued temporary injunction on the ground that in the said report no khasra number has been mentioned over which the construction has been made. Rather the respondent in his application stated that he is raising construction on another khasra number which has been purchased by him through Mutation No, 2138 while the suit khasra number is 230 and he has stopped the construction over it in compliance of the order of the Court. Thus, the application for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent has rightly been rejected by the lower Court.
7. In view of the above, this revision petition is dismissed in limine, being not maintainable. However, the petitioners can seek relief from the Court trying the main suit, under the relevant provision of CPC subject to availability of cogent proof.