IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is directed against the order dated 17-12-1998, passed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No,1 of 1998 in Criminal Original No,71/W of 1994 in Writ Petition No,23-R of 1987.
2. It is pleaded that Muhammad Hussain, father of the petitioners filed writ petition No,23-R of 1987 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore in respect of the disputed land. Along with the petition, an application under section 151, C.P.C. (C.M. No,409 of 1987), seeking preservation of the possession of Muhammad Hussain writ petitioner and restraining the respondent Syed Ahmed etc., from alienating the land, in dispute, in any way or in any manner whatsoever, till the disposal of the writ petition, was filed. Another application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. (C.M. No,410 of 1987), was also tiled for impleading Syed Ahmed as respondent in the writ petition. On 21-12-1993, Syed Ahmed filed a petition (Criminal Original No,71/W of 1994) under sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), read with Article 204 of the Constitution, against Muhammad Ikram, Muhammad Ibrahim and Manzoor Hussain sons of Muhammad Hussain, writ petitioner, in Writ Petition No,23-R of 1987. Inter alia, stating therein that there was dispute between Syed Ahmed applicant and the father of the above condemners regarding land measuring 80 Kanals and 8 Marlas situate in Chak No,30/UCC, Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura and that in spite of the order of status quo dated 8-10-1987, passed by the High Court, Mutation No,129 in respect of the same land was entered in the names of the petitioners herein and, in this way, they had committed contempt of the High Court. It was also stated in the application that Muhammad Hussain, father of the petitioners herein obtained the status quo order about the land, in dispute but thereafter, the petitioners herein filed a civil suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura and obtained ex parte decree about the land, in question, getting the change about the ownership of the land thus committing contempt of the High Court and were liable to be punished for the same. Criminal Original No,71/W of 1994, was dismissed by a learned Division Bench vide order dated 3-4-1994 in the following terms:-- "The grievance of the petitioner is that during the pendency of W.P. No,23-R of 1987, the respondent/petitioner in the said writ petition had obtained an order of status quo in C.M. No,409 of 1987. Thereafter he filed a civil suit for declaration that he was the owner of the property in dispute in obtained ex parte decree in the said suit and in pursuance of the same got a mutation sanctioned in the Revenue Record, which is violative of the said order passed by this Court, therefore, he should be punished for contempt of Court. The prayer in C.M. No,409 of 1987 was that during the pendency of W.P. No,23-R of 1987, the petitioner's possession over the property in dispute should be preserved and the present petitioner/impendent in the writ petition should be restrained from alienating the property in dispute."
2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that the status quo order shall be deemed to have been passed in terms of these two prayers, therefore, the act of the respondent of filing of the said suit prima facie does not amount to violation of the said order. We have also gone through the copy of the decree passed in the said suit, which has been placed on record. It shows that the present petitioner was not made a party in the same, therefore, the said decree prima facie is not binding on the petitioner. The respondent was not restrained from seeking any remedy available to him against any other person by filing a suit. We notice that after the said decree was passed, the respondent's W.P. No,23-R of 1987 was dismissed by this Court upholding the transfer of the property in dispute in favour of the present petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to get the entries made in the Revenue Record according to the judgment passed by this Court in the said writ petition. No case for contempt of Court has been made out, therefore, this application is dismissed."
3. Syed Ahmed also moved Civil Miscellaneous Application No,1 of 1998 in Criminal Original No,71/W of 1994 in Writ Petition No,23-R of 1987 under section 12(2) read with 114/151, C.P.C. For setting aside the order dated 3-4-1994 passed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Original No,7.1/W of 1994 in W.P. No,23-R of 1987. The prayer clause reads thus:-- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the impugned order dated 7-4-1994 to the extent of the observation: We notice that after the said decree was passed, the respondent's W.P.23-R of 1987 was dismissed by this Court upholding the transfer of the property in dispute in favour of the present petitioner.
The petitioner is at liberty to get the entries made in the Revenue Record according to the judgment passed by this Court in the said. Writ, Petition.'
Be set aside/modified in the interest of Justice and petition of the respondent No,1 be dismissed to that extent. The delay if any in filing of this application may also kindly be condoned and this application be heard on merits.'
It is further prayed that the operation of the impugned order be suspended and the respondent No,1 be restrained not to eject the petitioners from the disputed land till the final decision of this petition.'
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and appropriate may also be granted'."
4. The learned Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the above application vide the impugned order dated 17-12-1998 in the following terms:- "This application on the face of it is misconceived. The main petition was a criminal original for taking action against the respondents who allegedly committed contempt of Court which was a criminal or at least quasi-criminal in nature to which C.P.C. Does not apply. An application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Cannot be filed in a criminal case.
2. The application is dismissed as being not competent."
5. Mian Nusrat Ullah. Learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners contends that whether the proceedings were civil or not depends upon the nature of the subject-matter of the proceedings and its object and not on the mode adopted or the forum provided for the enforcement of the right. He contends that proceedings, which deal with a right of civil nature do not cease to lie so merely because the writ is said to be enforced by having recourse to the writ jurisdiction.
6. ' There is no cavil with the above proposition, which is supported by the judgment of this Court in Hussain Baldish v. Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi PLD 1970 SC 1. Relevant observations in the report read thus:-- "The writ jurisdiction under Article 98 of the Constitution, as already stated, is an original jurisdiction.
Obviously, the jurisdiction under that Article pertains to civil as well as other matters. At the moment, I shall consider the nature of the proceeding arising out of a writ petition relating to a civil matter, as in the instant case. A proceeding taken for the enforcement of a civil right is a civil proceeding, whatever may be the source of the Court's jurisdiction invoked for enforcement of such a right. According to Stround's Judicial Dictionary, Civil proceedings is a process for recovery of individual right or redress of individual wrong, inclusive, in its proper legal sense, of suits by the Crown see Bradlough v. Clarks (2), Whether a proceeding is civil or not depends on the nature of the subject-matter of the proceeding and its object, and not on the mode adopted or the forum provided for the enforcement of the right. A proceeding which deals with a right of a civil nature does not cease to be so merely because the right is sought to be enforced by having recourse to the writ jurisdiction. Judged from these aspects, a proceeding under Article 98 of the Constitution relating to a civil matter is a civil proceeding, although the High Court's jurisdiction in such a proceeding is Constitutional jurisdiction of an original kinds A civil proceeding in a Court of civil jurisdiction is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure (see its preamble). By virtue of section 117 of the Code, a civil proceeding in a High Court is also governed by the provisions of the Code other than the provisions which are specially excepted. A proceeding under Article 98 of the Constitution concerning a civil matter being a civil proceeding relating to the High Court's original civil jurisdiction and section 114 of the Code conferring power of review not having been made inapplicable to the High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction, the power of review an order made by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction will be available to it under the said section 114 if that section is otherwise applicable."
7. In the instant case, however, the controversy arises out of proceedings initiated under sections 3 and 4 of the Act and Article 204 of the Constitution. Admittedly, the Code of Civil Procedure regulates civil proceedings but the contempt proceedings are neither civil nor criminal and it partakes both. The power exercised by the Court in contempt proceedings is in the nature of.
Special jurisdiction. Section 7 of the Act lays down a procedure for Supreme Court and High Court.
Where it is necessary in the interest of effective administration of justice to proceed against a contemner, he may be proceeded against by setting forth the substance of the charge against him and the ground on which he is charged with contempt of Court and calling upon him to show cause why he should not be punished, after holding such enquiry and taking such evidence as the Court deems necessary. A bare perusal of section 7 of the Act indicates that section 12(2), C.P.C. Is not applicable to proceedings initiated under the Act. Refer clause (3) of Article 204 of the Constitution which provides that the exercise of the power conferred on a Court may be regulated by law and subject to law by rules made by the Court. The superior Courts are not bound by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code or the Code of Criminal Procedure or by the technicalities of ordinary criminal proceedings or civil proceedings in dealing with a contempt matter. The basic requirement in such cases is the ascertainment of truth by providing the contemner a fair hearing to defend himself. Refer G.S. Gideon v. The State PLD 1963 SC 1, wherein it was observed:-- "The jurisdiction of Courts of Record or superior Courts to punish for contempt by the summary process of attachment or committal is a special jurisdiction, which is inherent in all such Courts as an essential concomitant of their power to preserve order in judicial proceedings and to maintain the authority of law. There is no fixed formula for contempt proceedings and technical accuracies are not required nor are the superior Courts bound by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or by the technicalities of ordinary criminal proceedings. All that is necessary is that the fundamental rules for the ascertainment of truth should be followed and the contemner should be given the fullest opportunity of defending himself."
9. Resultantly, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order. The petition is dismissed and leave declined.