This petition under Atticie 123 of the 1962-Constitution pra's that the respondents be punished for contempt On the ground that during the subsistence of a status quo order passed by the High Court in favour of the present petitioner in Writ Petition No, 366/R of 1969 respondents 1 and 2 had carried out certain structural alterations at the instance of respondent No, 3, so as to make it appear that the nature of the property was different from what the petitioner was alleging it to be before the Settlement Courts. It may be stated that the dispute is about a shop situate on Hall Road, Lahore.
2. The writ petition had come up before the then Chief Justice on the 24th of April 1969, when it was admitted and an interim order was made to the effect that "meanwhile, status quo to be maintained". Subsequently, the question of the interim relief to be afforded to the petitioner again came up before the Court on the 8th of February 1970 and it was directed that the tenants occupying the property shall continue attorning to the party to whom they were attorning on the 24th of April 1969, i,e,, the date on which the ad interim status quo order was made. The allegation in the present application is that although respondents 1 and 2 are not parties to the main petition, yet they were fully aware of the status quo order made by this Court, and have wilfully constructed an iron gate and demolished certain steps leading to the gate with a view to changing the nature of the property.
3. Even though it may be held on the authority of Abdul Karim etc. v. Boota and another that respondents 1 and 2 can be held liable for contempt without their being parties to the main case, yet the question remains as to what is the nature of the interim order issued by this Court. The application on the basis of which status quo was ordered to be maintained on the 24th of April1 1969, referred merely to the suspension of the impugned order of Settlement authorities and the maintenance of the petitioner's possession. The subsequent amplification of this order made on the 8th of February 1970, related to the payment of rent by the tenants. At no stage was any request made by the petitioner for an order restraining the respondents in the main case from interfering with the nature of the property so as not to alter its character for the purpose of Settlement operations. Contempt proceedings being in the nature of guise criminal proceedings, the benefit of every doubt has to go to the respondents. As there is no order whatsoever made by this Court regarding the maintenance of the structural position of the property as it existed on the 24th of April 1969, no question arises of the respondents having disobeyed any such order. The contention that the order directing the maintenance of status quo should be interpreted in the widest possible sense so as to mean a freezing Of the respective positions of the parties concerning all matters touching the property in dispute, is not supported by any authority whatsoever ; and is much too sweeping a proposition to be accepted. The learned counsel has referred to certain observations appearing in Mst. Raman Bibi v. Mst. Amina Bibi which hardly support him. The learned Judge has observed on page 375 of the Report that the scope and nature of a stay order has to be discovered in each case keeping in view its real intent and purpose. Applying this test to the present case, I see no justification for holding that the respondents have disobeyed the order of this Court.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the application fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. It is for the petitioner to obtain proper orders, if so advised, regarding the maintenance of the structural entity of the property which, according to him, is being threatened or altered by the respondents. PLD 1956 Lah. 19 PLD 1970 Lah. 371