1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Peshawar High Court dated 9-4-1989 dismissing a Constitution Petition filed by the petitioners whereby they sought to challenge notice dated 18-10-1984 issued by the Civil Judge, First Class, Lahore to show cause why action in contempt should not be taken against them. The impugned notice was issued in execution proceedings of a compromise decree passed against petitioners in a suit riled by respondents 1 to 3. The High Court dismissed the Constitution Petition on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction in these words:-- "The writ petition in hand has been filed to challenge a notice which has been issued by Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore. However under Article 199 of the Constitution this Court cannot exercise any jurisdiction in respect of the notice issued by respondent No.4 for the reason that he is not performing functions within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In this connection the provisions of sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 199 are very clear. This Court is not competent to entertain and adjudicate upon this writ petition on account of the bar of territorial jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs."
2. Learned Additional Advocate-General appearing in support of the petition submits that since the decree was sought to be executed through contempt proceedings within the jurisdiction of the High Court, it was competent for the High Court to examine the legality of the impugned notice.
3. Learned Additional Advocate-General further urged that action in contempt cannot be taken for the enforcement of a decree against a judgment-debtor and in this behalf relied on certain reported cases.
4. We are however clearly of the view that since it is open to the petitioner to raise any pleas in defence to the show-cause notice before the learned Civil Judge who has issued the impugned notice, and in any case for the action in contempt against the petitioners the matter will have to be referred by the learned Civil Judge to the High Court where the petitioners would again be entitled to raise all the pleas that may be available to them on facts or in law, it was too premature a stage for the High Court to interfere in its Constitutional jurisdiction.
5. For these reasons there is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed.