RASAAL HASAN SYED, J.----Petitioner in this Constitutional petition assails orders dated 11.04.2017 and 29.04.2017 of the learned courts below .
2. Facts in precision are that respondent No.1 instituted a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the petitioners praying that they be permanently restrained from demolition of certain construction and also from raising any illegal one. Vide order dated 30.11.2016 learned Civil Judge directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding joint western wall of the suit property . The respondent moved an application complaining' violation of the order and for proceeding on account of the breach of the ad interim injunction issued by the learned Civil Judge and also for restoration of the demolished construction. The application was contested by the petitioner . Vide order dated 25.01.2017 the learned Civil Judge appointed local commission to ascertain the position at site as to the suit property . The direction to the local commission was to make spot inspection and report as to whether the suit property consisted of two portions or not; whether the suit property was in the possession/residence of the defendants or not; if the suit property was not in possession of the defendants, then who was in possession thereof; and whether there was any construction on the spot and, if so, was it old or new .
3. The local commission submitted his report dated 16.02.2017 reporting the demolition of the construction on site and raising of new one in place of the old construction, in violation of injunctive order of the Court. Objections were invited, which were filed.
4. Vide order dated 11.04.2017 the learned Civil Judge, after hearing both sides and perusal of record, concluded that the objections were meritless which were accordingly dismissed. It was further observed that the prayer for restoration of the previous position was made in the contempt application, which the court ordered to be restored to the position of site at the date of filing of the suit. The order was challenged through a civil revision which was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge vide order dated 29.04.2017 observing that no one could be permitted to play with the judicial system and violate the injunctive order and that the petitioners were bound to restore the previous position. In the instant writ petition both these orders are under challenge.
5. Heard.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner stance that the suit was later dismissed as infructuous, therefore, the impugned order could not sustain. Furthermore, the report of the local commission could not be accepted and suffers from certain errors and that the local commission did not properly verify or report the facts, and, in any case, the restoration should not have been ordered. The submissions made are ill-found ed and even otherwise contrary to the facts as appeared from the record annexed with this petition. It is settled rule that the litigants shall obey and respect the judicial orders religiously and without any reservation and even if one had any objection to the order , the same could be raised before the court for decision, instead of becoming a judge of one's own cause; no one could be permitted to defend their illegal actions. Once status quo order had been passed, the parties to the suit, including the petitioners were duty bound to honor the same and refrain from making any demolition or dispossession of the opposite side from site or raise any illegal construction. Instead of defending themselves before the court, the petitioners opted to demolish the construction as reported by the local commission and started new construction. Objections raised to the report were misconceived; no misreading or non-reading could be pointed out therein, nor the facts reported could be belied by any authentic material. The learned Civil Judge, therefore, rightly dismissed the objection while the learned Addl. District Judge, after duly considering the available record, appropriately declined to interfere therein.
7. In "Muhammad Sabir Khan and 13 others v. Rahim Bakhsh and 16 others" (PLD 2002 SC 303) it has been ruled that illegal acts in violation of the stay order need to be cancelled and set aside. It has been observed by the honourable Supreme Court to the effect that any act done in violation of stay order issued by the Court shall be nullity in the eyes of law. As regards the argument that suit was later disposed of as infructuous and in contempt proceedings order for restoration could not be issued; the same is ill-founded and untenable. In "Bakhtawar and others v. Amin and others" (1980 SCMR 89) it was observed by the august Supreme Court to the effect that where a party contravening an injunctive order has done something for its own advantage to the disadvantage of another party , it is open to the Court in its inherent jurisdiction to bring back the party to the position where it originally stood; as if the order had not been contravened and that the exercise of this inherent power is based on the principle that no party can be permitted to take advantage of its wrong in spite of the order to the contrary passed by the Court. Responding to the objection that the main lis was dismissed later, the restoration order was unwarranted, the Apex Court observed to the effect that this plea had no substan ce and that if during the period when an injunction was in operation it was disobeyed, the Court would proceed against the party responsible for the breach and that dismissal of appeal does not excuse the party guilty of disobedience.
8. Mere fact that in the instant case the suit was for permanent injunction and that in violation of interim injunctive order illegal demolition took place, shall not make the suit infructuous; rather the court on satisfaction of the violation of the order could order the restoration of the property to its original condition as it was at the time of suit and thereafter try the suit on merits rather than assuming it to be infructuous. Refer ence may be made to "Chiragh Din and another v . Chairman, Thal Development Authority" (1970 SCMR 29 ).
9. Even otherwise, in dealing with the contempt application the court was only required to examine as to whether the order of the court was violated; the construction was demolished in violation of the stay order and whether any illegal construction was going on in breach of the status quo order . The court' shall be competent to not only punish the contemnor on account of breach of judicial order but also to direct the removal of illegal construction and the restoration of the position on site, as it existed at the time of issuance of the injunctive order .. In the impugned order similar directions have been given to which no exception could be taken. For the reasons above, there is no substance in the instant writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed .