QAISER AHMED HAMIDI, J.- The question that has been raised in this complaint filed under section 3/4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, relates to the disobedience of an order of injunction passed by III Senior Civil Judge (West) Karachi, on 13.8.1987 in Suit No.663 of 1987 filed by Shujaat Ahmed Siddiqui, through his attorney applicant Muhammad Siddique against Karachi Development Authority, through its Director General.
2. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the disobedience of injunction amounts to contempt of Court punishable under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, .1976. The respondents, who are on pre-admission notice have seriously questioned this legal position by stating that for disobedience of an order of injunction, rule 2(3) of Order XXXIX, C.P.C, is a very satisfactory remedy, and where an adequate and efficacious remedy is provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, resort to the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, is uncalled for.
3. As pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bahawal alias Bhaloo vs. The State, reported in P.L.D. 1962 S.C. 476, mere failure to obey any process of the Court, when other methods of enforcing the process are available, does not amount to contempt of Court to be punished summarily by the High Court, unless the person served with the process, has done something more to exhibit a disrespect for the process of the Court.
4. This question was again examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. M.O. Ghani.
Vice-Chancellor. University of Dacca vs. Dr. A.N.M. Mahmood. Reported in P.L.D. 1966 S.C. 802, wherein the following observations were made: " It will be noticed that sub-rules (3) and (4) of rule 2 of Order XXXIX, provide an adequate remedy against disobedience of an injunction order issued under sub-rules (1) and (2). With respect, we are unable to share the opinion of the learned Judges of the High Court that the alleged disobedience of the injunction order in the instant case was one, which could be dealt with properly, only under the contempt jurisdiction of the High Court. The machinery provided by rule 2 of Order XXXIX, of the Civil Procedure Code was quite effective to deal with a situation of the Kind that arose in the circumstances of this case."
5. It, therefore, follows that for the disobedience of an order of prohibitory injunction, contempt proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, are not desireable remedy.
Under rule 2(3) of Order XXXIX, C.P.C., the Court which had issued the order is empowered to punish the breach of injunction, issued under rule 2 of Order XXXIX, C.P.C., and an attempt to resort to the remedy provided under the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, before this Court by circumventing the law amounts to showing distrust upon the sub-ordinate Courts. The applicant has already taken recourse to proper remedy by filing an application under rule 2(3) of Order XXXIX. C.P.C, before the civil Court having jurisdiction, and his attempt to seek relief under the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, is undesirable.
6. No case for interference is made out, and the complaint filed under section 3/4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, is dismissed in limine.