1. Through the instant C.M.A., the learned counsel has alleged that a contempt of this Hon'ble Court's order passed on 28.10.2014 in an Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 application has been committed by the plaintif f as the undertaking given by it has been compromised. It would be prudent for a complete and fair adjudication of this matter to reproduce the relevant paragraph of the said Order as under: "This is an application C.M.A. No, 9392/2014 through which the defendant has sought orders that the plaintif f, its servants, agents, attorneys, assignees may be restrained from approaching third parties and projecting the defendant as a defaulter except contesting the suit. Learned counsel for the plaintif f present before the Court give a statement that the defendant shall not be harassed in any manner whatsoever and the representative of plaintif f shall not visit the third parties and shall not project as a defaulter to the defendant before the general public. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the plaintif f the defendant's counsel is satisfied and does not press this application which is accordingly disposed of as not pressed."
2. The very intent of the parties as depicting from the said Order and as per the undertaking given therein aims to save the defendant from: a. projecting the defendant as a defaulter to the general public; b. harassing the defendant in any manner whatsoever; and c. visiting the third parties (for , the above purposes).
3. The instant contempt application finds its roots from a letter dated 17.12.2014 from the plaintif f (NIB Bank, formerly PICIC) written to the Director FIA making a formal complaint against ex-employees and wilful defaulters of the Bank causing losses to the tune of Rs.52 million to the Bank. Along with the said letter , a list of more than two dozen individuals has also been sent to the Director FIA, of which, one is the current defendant, being Emmad ul Hassan.
4. The attention of the Court is also drawn to the prayer made in the said letter where the Bank requested FIA "to institute an inquiry to lawful punishment of culprits those are involved in forgery and help to recover the outstanding amount and to take legal action against defaulters" . Counsel argued vehemently that the inclusion of these words in the said letter , as well as, the very origination of the said letter to FIA, notwithstanding that it is made in respect of a number of individuals, is in violation of the Order passed by consensus by the Hon'ble Court on 28.10.2014.
5. In support of his assertions, the learned counsel cited 2010 SCMR 5924(sic.) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an undertaking given to the Court has a force of law .
6. Mr. Habib-ur-Rehman, the learned senior advocate on the other hand relying on his counter-statement submitted that the letter written to FIA does not violate the consensus arrived and embod ied in the form of the Order of 28.10.2014 on the ground that the very intention of the said Qrder was to safeguar d the defendant from the public; not to case and harassment to him as well as not to reach third parties in order to dis-repute the defendant. The said letter has been written by the Bank indicating names of 26 individuals to FIA for the institution of criminal cases against them which is an act that the institution has to bring forward in order to completely discharge its legal responsibility and perform its fiduciary duties as a public institution.
7. Notwithstanding therewith, the learned counsel brought to Court's attention Annexure 'B' of the counter- statement where the Bank wrote another letter to FIA on 25.2.2015, in terms of which FIA was requested, that the bank is withdrawing the name of the current defendant from the list submitted to FIA along with Bank's earlier letter of 17.12.2014.
8. To this end, the learned counsel for the defendant submitted that it is an admission of liability of the Bank that the illegality was originally committed and an attempt to cure it was made through the second letter , however , he asserted ti at his client had already suf fered a breach aimed to ill-repute him in the interim.
9. Heard both the counsel, reviewed the Order reproduced hereinabove, examined the records and the annexures to the application and its counter . I am not convinced at all that the initiation of legal process by the Bank which it was legally required to do, is by any stretch of imagination a breach of Order dated 28.10.2014. I do not see any force in the contention that any contempt has occurred of the said Order , to a certain extent, I see it with dismay that a name was recalled by the Bank once having been submitted, suggesting the lack of full conviction on the part of the Bank. The Bank should have been more prudent in writing the first letter and if there were grounds available to exclude the name of Mr . Emad ul Hassan, the Bank should have done so in the first instant.
10. Be that as it may, without touching the merits of such reference made to FIA, I am of the view that the said letter of 17,12.2014 was a private and privilege communication between the Bank and a Government institution, was neither a public announcement nor at all intended for the consumption of people at large, nor was aimed to be reproduced or broadcasted to the general public, thereby remaining a privilege and private communication from the Bank to a government agency , protected by the doctrine of privacy .
11. I therefore see no merits in the assertion that a breach of Order dated 28.10.2014 has taken place giving rise to contempt proceedings, since none of the prerequisites listed in paragraph 2 hereof have been performed by the plaintif f.
12. I therefore dismiss the present C.M.A. with no orders as to costs.
Sd/- Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan, J