1. ' This Civil Revision is by the plaintiff in a suit for perpetual injunction filed on 26-9-1987 by him against one Mammi son of Salhoon in the trial Court. On the application of the plaintiff, trial Court issued a status quo order on 27-9-1987. It was alleged to have been served upon the defendant.
2. Notwithstanding, the defendant and his son acted in disregard of it. Plaintiff filed an application against the defendant and his son Muhammad Riaz for taking action against them under Order 39, Rule 2 (3), Civil Procedure Code. Defendant contested the application.
3. ' Contest gave rise to following issues:-
(1) Whether the respondents have violated the order of status quo dated 27-9-1987? OPA.
(2) Relief.
4. ' Plaintiff gave evidence of number of witnesses to support violation of temporary injunction by the defendant and his son. Respondent& gave evidence of three witnesses in rebuttal. Upon review of this evidence, the trial Court found the respondents guilty of contempt under Order 39, rule 2 (3), Civil Procedure Code, and sentenced them to a simple imprisonment for a term c>f four months each with a further direction for bringing about a status quo prevailing before the violation of temporary injunction. This was, vide order of the trial Court dated 25-9-1988. In appeal by the condemneRs,, the decision of the trial Court was reveRs,ed on 2-5-1989 by Additional District Judge, Sargodha.
5. ' Parties have been heard. With their assistance, existing record has been examined. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be made, it is unnecessary to dwell and dilate at length on merits of the contentions. Suffice it to say that the lower Appellate Court had neither discussed nor examined the evidence given by the parties to support their respective contentions. It was its clear duty, before it could have set aside the conviction order and shelved the matter with a direction to better attend to the merits of the suit, rather than "wasting his time, talent and attention in ancillary matter of violation". So long as the injunction order was in force, the peRs,on addressed by it was bound to obey and act in accordance with its legal dictates. Breach of an injunction order ought not to be lightly taken and upon proof of its violation must be dealt with sternly to observe respect and legal discipline in Courts. When the matter is looked at and examined in this peRs,pective, lower Appellate Court appeared to have acted rather superficially in performance of its judicial functions. Consequently, the result arrived at by it cannot be termed satisfactory.
6. ' In view of the aforesaid, Civil Revision is allowed. Impugned decision dated 2-5-1989 of Additional District Judge, Sargodha, is set aside and the case is remanded for its decision afresh in accordance with law and the observations made above. There shall be no order as to costs in this Court. and