' Facts giving rise to the contempt proceedings initiated against Rafiq Ahmed Bbatti, Managing Director, Messrs Rafiq Industries Ltd., Islamabad may be briefly stated. Messrs Rafiq Industries Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1913, with its registered office at 75, 1/9, Industrial Area, Islamabad, instituted a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 31st December.
1980/1st January, 1981 in respect of a plot situated in Sector 1/9, Industrial Area, Islamabad, against Messrs Conforce. During pendency of the suit, Mr. Rafiq Ahmed Bhatti, made a statement in the Court on 5th June, 1980 whereunder, he gave an undertaking to pay Rs, 3,00,000 to Messrs Conforce Ltd , through deposit in the Court upto 30th June, 1983 and Rs, 10,00,000 on 25th July, 1983.
He allegedly failed to abide by this undertaking. Consequently, the Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad, by order dated 27th July, 1933 dismissed the suit. Messrs Rafiq Industries Ltd. Filed an application under section 12 (2) read with Order XLVII, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C., alleging that Messrs Conforce Ltd.
Had committed fraud on it, as well as, on the Court, in that, Mr. Rafiq Ahmed Bhatti was pursuaded to issue cheques to Messrs Conformer Ltd. Instead of depositing money in the Court. The application, in question, was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad, by order dated 1st December, 1983. Subsequently, Messrs Rafiq Industries Ltd. Invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court for the redress of its grievance by means of Civil Revision No, 235/83.
2. The revision petition came up for preliminary hearing on 19th December, 1983. Mr. Rafiq Ahmed Bhatti gave an undertaking to deposit Rs, 13,00,000 in the Court by 20th December, 1983. In consequence, I admitted the petition to a regular hearing. Meanwhile, the operation of the impugned judgment and decree, dated 27th July, 1983 of the Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad, was suspended subject to notice to the opposite-party. Mr. Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate, who was holding watching brief on behalf of the respondent and present in the Court throughout the proceedings accepted the service of notice. In the interest of expeditious disposal, the final hearing of the stay application was fixed therein for 20th December, 1983. Mr. Muhammad Hanif Bhatti, learned counsel for the contemner appeared in the Court at 8.30 a. m. Yesterday and sought an adjournment to produce the challan showing deposit of the said amount by 12-00 noon after contacting his client.
However, neither he nor the alleged contemner turned up. Notwithstanding their absence, I adjourned hearing of the case to 21st December, 1983 in the interest of justice. Today the contemner alongwith his counsel appeared in the Court. The contemner made a statement in the open Court that due to unavoidable circumstances he could not deposit the requisite amount in Court in terms of order, dated 19th December, 1983 but has brought Rs, 13,00,000 in cash for payment to the respondent. Mr. Muhammad Hanif Bhatti, learned counsel for the contemner was directed to count the money which the petitioner allegedly brought in his brief case. It transpired that the contemner brought Rs, 2.50 lacs only and deliberately made a false statement and committed wilful breach of a valid undertaking given to the Court.
3. There were sufficient grounds for believing that Rafiq Ahmed Bhatti has committed contempt of this Court by committing breach of a valid undertaking given to the Court and making intentionally a false statement in view and presence of the Court. I, therefore, thought it necessary, in the interest of effective administration of justice, to proceed against him under section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976. Accordingly, the contemner was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be punished for the contempt of the Court on the said charges. The contemner accepted the notice alongwith his counsel, Mr. Muhammad Hanif Bhatti. He pleaded guilty and threw himself at the mercy of the Court and did not wish to lead any evidence in his defence.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the whole matter. The contemner is clearly guilty of the contempt of Court within the mischief of section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976. He committed a wilful breach of a valid undertaking. His audacity to intentionally make a false statement in the face of the Court was intended to bring the authority of this Court and the administration of law into disrespect or disrepute and to interfere with and prejudice the process of law and due course of judicial proceedings in Civil Revision No, 235/83. I, therefore, convict him under section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976. However, in view of the unqualified apology tendered by him, the interest of justice will be sufficiently met if he is sentenced to seven days' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs, 2,000 and in default thereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for one mont.
' The contemner is present in Court. He is taken into custody.