1. ' This second appeal is made against the order dated 30-12-1982 passed by the learned District Judge Rawalakote.
2. ' The second appeal against the impugned order is not competent. However, this appeal is treated as a revision and Muhammad Ashraf Khan appellant shall hereinafter be called as petitioner.
3. ' A suit for perpetual injunction brought by the plaintiff-respondent is pending in the Court of Sub- Judge, Rawalakote. Initially the case was heard by the Additional Sub-Judge who on application of the plaintiff-respondent issued an interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the suit land. This interim injunction was issued subject to objections.
4. ' The objections were very soon filed by the defendants but the matter still stands undisposed of.
5. ' The plaintiff-respondent had been applying for defiance of the order of injunction issued on which the notices were issued to the defendants.
6. ' From the very beginning it is the stand of the defendants that the land in suit is under their possession and not in possession of the plaintiff-respondent. The trial Court struck issues both was: whether the plaintiff is in possession of the land in suit to which possession, the interference by the defendants is to be stopped by issue of perpetual injunction. Again, an issue to the effect, whether the defendants are in possession of the land in suit on strength of a deed of arbitration.
7. ' Again, it was during the pendency of the suit that one more application was moved by the plaintiff that the defendants may be stopped to construct a house on the suit land to which effect a temporary injunction was issued on 3-2-1981 subject to objections. The objections of the defendants were not taken into consideration so far. As a matter of fact, the controversy whether the temporary injunction should stay or be vacated as objected to, still stands undetermined. The Courts below should have a look at Order XXX1X, rule 3 of C. P. C. While issuing interim injunctions.
8. Another notice on application of the plaintiff was given to the defendants to show-cause as to why for construction of a house over the land in suit in contravention of the order of temporary injunction issued by the Court, they should not be punished. This was the only fact which was taken into consideration by the trial Court and no other fact. As a matter of law all the facts constituting defiance of the injunctions were to be brought to the notice4 of the defaulter and it was also mandatory that the provisions of law under which the action was going to be taken against the person at fault should have also been made know to him by the trial Court, that is to say, while proceeding against the defaulter, the law under which the petitioner was penalized, was not at all mentioned by the trial Court in the impugned order. The order of attachment was also not positively made. It was ordered that land in suit may be attached. Who was ordered to attach the land in suit? The Court itself or some other authority was ordered to attach the land. According to the trial Court, the construction of the house over the land in suit was found in defiance of the interim injunction issued. The second interim injunction is to be relevantly taken in view and not the previous one. The house in question was constructed before the issuance of the second temporary injunction by which any construction was stopped. And so no question of its defiance arises.
9. ' The evidence on this point was wrongly appreciated by both the Courts below. The first injunction was issued to maintain the status quo: who was in actual possession of the land in suit at the time of the institution of the suit is a matter to be determined in view of the issues struck referred to above.
10. ' Presently, Muhammad Ashraf Khan defendant is in possession of the land in suit. Whether this possession was taken forcibly during the pendency of the suit or prior to the institution of the suit, are the questions to be taken into consideration by the trial Court. Order XXXIX, rule 2(3), C. P. C.
11. Which was presumably taken into consideration by the first appellate Court below was not at all expressed by the trial Court. PLD 1952 Lab. 77 was a guiding authority for the Courts below but they have failed to appreciate the same. The guidelines indicated in the above-mentioned authority by the learned Judge who was Mr. Justice A. R. Cornelius, then an Acting Chief Justice, should invariably by followed by the Courts below while] proceeding against a person at fault in relation to the defiance of injunctions issued by the Courts.
12. That being so, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned orders of the Courts below are set aside hereby. The trial Court is further directed] to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.