' NAIMUDDIN, J.--This is an application under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1976, read with Order XXXIX, rule 2(3), C.P.C., made in the following circumstances.
2. The petitioner filed an application being C.M.A. No. 2561 of 1983, praying for an interim order prohibiting and restraining the respondents from conducting election of the Pakistan Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Karachi, under the amended Bye-laws of the Society and from declaring the result of the election that was scheduled to be held on 16-12-1983. This application came up for hearing on 5-1-1984, when its notice was ordered for 10-1-1984, and by way of an ad interim relief it was ordered that till then the result of the election would not be announced by respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
3. It appears that on 10-1-1984, the case could not be taken up for want of time. Therefore, the petitioner filed another application, being C.M.A. No. 152 of 1984, for extending the stay granted on 5-1-1984. Notice of this second application was ordered for 25-1-1984, and the respondents were directed not to announce the result of the election till the hearing of the injunction application.
4. On 25-1-1984, when C.M.A. No. 152 of 1984, came up for hearing it was by consent ordered that C.M.A. No. 2561 of 1983, shall he fixed for hearing on 30-1-1984, and ad interim order passed on 5-1- 1984, shall continue till 30-1-1984. Thus C.M.A. No. 152 of 1984, was disposed of as having become infructuous.
5. On 30-1-1984, the hearing of C.M.A. No. 2561 of 1983, was adjourned at the request of the Assistant Advocate-General, Sind to 8-2-1984, on the ground that Mr. Abdul Sattar Shaikh, Additional Advocate-General, Sind, was not well. Meanwhile the operation of ad interim order passed on 5-1- 1984, was extended.
6. On 8-2-1984, when the application came up for hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner requested for time for filing affidavit-in rejoinder. Accordingly, the time was allowed and the hearing was adjourned to 13-2-1984, and ad interim order was extended till 13-2-1984.
7. On 13-2-1984, it was ordered by consent that the application shall come up for hearing alongwith C.P. No. D-934 of 1983, and other connected petitions on 23-2-1984. The ad interim order was extended until then. Thereafter, the petition and the application came up on 23-2-1984, but the hearing was adjourned to a date in office, without extending the operation of interim order any further.
8. Thereafter, the present application was filed on 6-3-1984, praying for action against the Managing Director of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 for announcing the result of the election on 25-2-1984, in gross violation of the order of this Court dated 24-1-1984.
9. We have heard Mr. S. Mahmoodul Hassan learned counel for the petitioner/applicant and Mr. S.M.
Noorul Hassan learned counsel for the respondents.
10. It is submitted by Mr. S. Mahmoodul Hassan that the respondents have disobeyed the order of this Court passed on 24-1-1984, whereby respondents were directed not to announce the result till the hearing of the injunction application. When we pointed out to him that the order passed on 24- 1-1984, was on C.M.A. No. 152 of 1984, and lasted only till 25-1-1984, when this application was dismissed as having become infructuous in view of the fresh order passed on that day, whereby by consent it was ordered that C.M.A. No. 2561 of 1983, should be fixed for hearing on 30-1-1984, and the operation of the ad interim order passed on 5-1-1984, was extended till 30-1-1984, he submitted that the respondents then have also violated this order too. But this submission is also not correct for the ad interim order passed on 5-1-1984, was extended upto 23-2-1984, by the orders, dated 30- 1-1984, 8-2-1984 and 13-2-1984, and therafter, it was not extended. He however, submitted that the interim order under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. lasts till the end of the proceedings or till it is varied, discharged or set aside by the Court on an application made under Order XXXIX, rule 4, C.P.C. But this argument ignores the fact that the order passed on 5-1-1984, was passed in exercise of the powers under rule 3 of Order XXXIX, C.P.C., without notice to the respondents and was in the nature of an ad interim order and that it was passed for. a limited time and unless it was again extended on 23-2-1984, it stood vacated by afflux of time on that date.
11. We are therefore, of the opinion that the respondents by announcing the result of the election on 25-2-1984, did not disobey any order of this Court.
12. In the result, we dismiss this application with no order as to costs.