MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J:- Through the instant civil revision petition, the petitioners impugn the orders dated 09.02.2024 and 10.02.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Islamabad- East. Vide the said orders dated 09.02.2024 and 10.02.2024, the petitioners' two applications for the recall of order dated 06.01.2024 were dismissed.
2. The instant petition was initially filed on 27.03.2024 before the learned District Judge, Islamabad- East which was returned for its filing before the proper forum vide order dated 30.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad. The said order dated 30.03.2024 shows that the said learned Court, while deliberating on its pecuniary jurisdiction, took notice of the fact that in his plaint before the Court of first instance, the respondent / plaintiff did not plead the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction or Court fee. Now, since revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") lies with this Court, I deem it appropriate to assume jurisdiction in the instant matter while leaving it for the learned trial Court to adjudicate upon the consequence of the respondent / plaintiff's omission to provide for the value of the original suit.
3. The facts essential for the disposal of the instant petition are that on 07.10.2021, the respondent instituted a suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction. In the said suit, the respondent claimed to be the owner of land measuring 5 marlas in khewat No.1459, khatooni No.1886, khasra No.2841 pursuant to sale deed dated 20.10.2023 and mutation No.8979, and alleged that the petitioners dispossessed him from the said property. It may be mentioned that in the plaint, the respondent did not mention the Revenue Estate / Mouza in which the said property is situated. However, the respondent's application dated 27.06.2023 addressed to the Additional Deputy Commissioner Revenue, Rawalpindi shows that the suit property is situated in Mouza Khanna Dak, Tehsil and District Rawalpindi. Along with the plaint, the respondent filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Vide order dated 08.10.2021 passed by the learned trial Court, ad-interim injunction was granted whereby the petitioners / defendants were directed to maintain status quo. The said injunction was confirmed vide order dated 19.06.2023. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3) CPC alleging that in violation of the injunctive order, the petitioners were raising construction over the suit property. The learned trial Court vide order dated 06.09.2023 directed the Court's bailiff for a spot inspection. Vide order dated 06.01.2024, the learned trial Court allowed the said application and directed for the suit property to be sealed.
4. The petitioners assailed the said order dated 06.01.2024 in an appeal which was dismissed, being barred by limitation, vide order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad.
5. On 20.01.2024, petitioner No.1 moved an application before the learned trial Court for the recall of the order dated 06.01.2024 which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 09.02.2024. Petitioner No.1 moved another application on 10.02.2024 for the recall of the order dated 06.01.2024 till final adjudication of the suit and the said application was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 10.02.2024 passed by learned trial Court. Both the said orders dated 09.02.2024 and 10.02.2024 have been assailed by the petitioners in the instant civil revision petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, after narrating the facts leading to filing of the instant petition, submitted that the order dated 06.01.2024 for sealing of the suit property was without jurisdiction; that while deciding the application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3) CPC, the learned trial Court was either to punish the alleged contemnor or to acquit him; and that petitioner No.1, being a widow, had been rendered shelter-less due to the said order dated 06.01.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for the instant civil revision petition to be allowed in terms of the relief sought therein.
7. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record with his able assistance. The facts leading to the filing of the instant petition have been set out in sufficient detail in paragraphs 2 to 5 above and need not be recapitulated.
8. The petitioners have not denied that the ad-interim injunctive order dated 08.10.2021 was in the respondent's favour. It is also an admitted position that the said injunctive relief was confirmed on 19.06.2023 after an inter-parte hearing. Vide the said injunction, the petitioners / defendants were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property. In his application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3) CPC, the respondent had alleged that despite the temporary injunction in the field, the petitioners / defendants, in violation of the said injunction, were raising construction over the suit property. Vide order dated 06.09.2023, the learned civil Court directed the bailiff to visit the spot, enforce the injunctive order with the assistance of the local police and submit a report regarding the suit property. The order dated 06.01.2024 passed by the learned civil Court refers to the report of the bailiff and observes the same to be clear about construction on the suit property.
It was in this backdrop that vide order dated06.01.2024 the learned civil Court directed for the suit property to be sealed in view of Section 151 CPC.
9. The sole question that requires determination is whether the learned civil Court, while deciding the application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3) CPC, was competent to have passed the order for sealing the suit property.
10. Now, the injunctive order was confirmed on 19.06.2023, whereas the contempt petition was filed by the respondent on 06.09.2023 alleging violation of the injunctive order at the hands of the petitioners by raising construction despite knowledge of the injunctive order. As it was confirmed by the bailiff in his report that the construction was raised on the suit property, the learned civil Court did not commit any illegality by sealing the suit property. Indisputably the act of blatant disregard of an injunctive order is akin to over-reaching the process of law and it is the duty of the learned civil Court to protect the rights of the parties as they existed on the date of the filing of the suit and the grant of an injunction. In taking this view, I have taken into account the law laid down by the Superior Courts in the following cases:-
(i) In the case of Bakhtawar Vs. Amin (1980 SCMR 89), it has been held as follows:- "6. ... It is well settled that when by contravening an injunction order the party against whom the order is passed has done something for its own advantage to disadvantage of the other party, it is open to the Court under its inherent jurisdiction to bring back the party to a position where it originally stood, as if the order had not been contravened. The exercise of this inherent power is based on the principle that no party can be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong in spite of the order to the contrary passed by the court. See Ayya mmal and another v. Thangavelu Padayachi (AIR 1950 Mad. 317); Maharaj Bahadur Singh v. A. H. Forbes (AIR 1922 Pat. 382), Tile State of Bihar v. Usha Devi and another (AIR 1956 Pat. 455) and Magna and another v. Rustam and another (AIR 1963 Raj. 3). In B. F. Yarghese v. Joseph Thomas (AIR 1957 Trav.-Co. 286) where the Court had already passed a temporary injunction against the defendants but the subsequent action of the plaintiffs in interfering with the subject-matter tended to discredit the temporary injunction, it was held that the Court was justified in granting a temporary injunction at the instance of the defendants ordering the plaintiffs to restore the status quo."
(ii) In the case of Hazara (Hill Tract) Improvement Trust Vs. Qaisera Ellahi (2005 SCMR 678), it was held that no vested right accrues in favour of a party to claim protection of the law, who violates a status quo order by raising construction during the subsistence of the same.
(iii) In the case of Saleem-ud-Din Vs. Municipal Committee (2000 SCMR 460), the appellants had violated a status quo order that had been issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh. For violating the status quo order, the Hon'ble High Court ordered that the appellants be detained in prison for a term of six months, or until they demolish the construction raised during the subsistence of the status quo order. In order to give an opportunity to the appellants to establish their bonafides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the appellants' offer to demolish the construction raised in violation of the status quo order, and to pay compensation to the party who had obtained the status quo order. Consequently, the appellants' apology was accepted and the order of the Hon'ble High Court to detain them in a civil prison was held in abeyance till such time that they demolished the construction raised during the subsistence of the status quo order.
(iv) In the case of Mayo Khan Vs. Bashir Ahmad (2007 MLD 588), it was held that a party which had raised construction in violation of a status quo order had disentitled itself from discretionary relief from a Court.
(v) In the case of Hameeda Akhtar Vs. Nazir Muhammad (1995 CLC 2020), it was held by the Hon'ble Peshawar High Court that if a party against whom a temporary injunction is issued, disobeys it, after gaining knowledge of the same, such a party can be committed to a civil prison and his property can be attached and sold under Clause (c) of Section 94 read with Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3) CPC. Furthermore, it was held that even if the status quo/injunctive order is discharged later, but if a party violates it during the period when it remained operative, the violator can be proceeded against. The Hon'ble High Court ordered that the entire construction raised in violation of the status quo order had to be removed and possession was to be restored as it existed on the day when the status quo order was issued.
(vi) In the case of Akbar Ali Vs. Muhammad Sabir (1989 MLD 92), it was inter-alia held by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court that if an act was done by a party in violation of a temporary injunction, the Court could direct the restoration of status quo ante. The Hon'ble High Court directed the petitioners to forthwith deliver possession to the respondent, and to remove the construction raised during the subsistence of the injunctive order. Furthermore, the petitioners were directed to be detained in a civil prison for a period of one week.
11. Consensus of judicial opinion, without divergence, is that Section 151 CPC should also be invoked to give effect to an order validly passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction. When unlawful measures are adopted by a party, it is plainly the responsibility of the Court to invoke Section 151 CPC to secure the ends of justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. That is what the learned civil Court did by passing the order dated 06.01.2024, and that is what it was required to do.
Hence, the impugned orders dated 09.02.2024 and 10.02.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Islamabad do not call for interference.
12. In view of the above, the instant petition, being without merit, is dismissed in limine.
13. The learned civil Court seized of the lis is expected to examine the plaint in accordance with Chapter-1, Part C, Rule 1, Volume-1 of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court Rules and Orders. The said Court is also expected to ascertain its own territorial jurisdiction in the matter after taking into account the location of the suit property. The office shall transmit a copy of this order to the learned District Judge, Islamabad-East and the learned civil Court concerned.