' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.-- Through this Criminal Original No, 26 of 1984/BWP Naik Muhammad wants this Court to punish Muhammad Manzoor, Muhammad Akhtar, Rana Hanif, Girdawar and Qanoongo and Bashir Ahmad Patwari under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 for disobeying the stay order dated 14-5-1984 issued by this Court in R.F.A. No, 32 of 1984/BWP. The learned counsel submits that although this Court has directed in its order dated 14-5-1984 that if the petitioners-appellants are still in possession of the suit land their possession shall not be disturbed meanwhile', yet the possession of the petitioner was disturbed by the respondents on 16- 5-1984 despite knowledge of the stay order issued by this Court on 14-5-1984 and as such they have committed an offence punishable under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record produced by them.
We feel that there are reasons to doubt that the respondents were aware of the stay order issued by this Court on 14-5-1984. Roznamcha Waqiati Annexure `J' reveals that in execution of the warrant of possession issued by the learned Civil Judge, Girdawar and Patwari had delivered the possession of the suit land to Muhammad Manzoor and Muhammad Akhtar respondents on the spot in Mauza Ismailpur on 16-5-1984; that on his own showing the petitioner had produced the stay order dated 14-5-1984 before Tehsildar, Minchinabad on 16-5-1984; that on his application Annexure 'C' Tehsildar had stated that since Mauza Ismailpur was under consolidation process, therefore, the application of the petitioner along-with stay order be sent to Consolidation Officer; that Annexure '12/I' shows that the application of the petitioner, copy Annexure 'C' was produced before Consolidation Officer on 20-5-1984 whereupon he had passed the following order:-{{URDU TEXT}} ' and as such it is quite obvious that the respondents were not aware of the stay order issued by this Court by the time they had disturbed the possession of the petitioner in execution of the warrant of possession issued by the learned Civil Judge.
3. For what has been said above, we do not see any justification to frame charge against the respondents. The notice issued to them on 9-7-1984 is, therefore, recalled. Since the possession of the petitioner was disturbed after the issuance of stay order by this Court, therefore, the petitioner may take appropriate legal action for restoration of the possession, if so advised. Disposed of accordingly. .