SAVED NAJAM-UL-HASSAN KAZMI, J.- Respondent filed a suit for seeking declaration with consequential relief. An application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for the grant of temporary injunction was filed in this suit which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 12.11.1997. Appeal was disposed of on 18.4.1998. In the appeal filed by respondent status quo order was granted on 15.11.1997.
2. An application was filed before the learned Additional District Judge, complaining that the order had been violated by transferring the property through exchange. This application was contested.
The learned Addl. District Judge, vide order, dated 21.9.1998, dismissed the application to the extent of Razzak respondent No. 1 in the appeal but, however, accept the same to the extent of Shabbir Hussain and Safdar Hussain, appellants herein and convicted hem to six months' simple imprisonment. Shabbir Hussain appellant who was incidentally present in the Court was taken into custody and sent to judicial lock-up for undergoing the sentence while warrants was issued for the arrest of Safdar Hussain.
3. In this appeal the order of learned Additional District Judge has been called in question.
4. Vide order, dated 28.9.1998, this appeal was admitted to regular hearing and appellant No. 1 was allowed bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court. In compliance of this order, appellant No. 1 was released from prison.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the appellants had not deliberately violated the order of the Court and that they were not aware of the order. Learned counsel submitted that sufficient punishment has been given to the appellants by sending one of the appellant to prison for number of days in implementation of the impugned order. It was added that the appellants would be bound by the final decree in the suit and that they tender unqualified apology and place themselves at the mercy of the Court.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the appellants did not tender apology in the Court below nor before this Court. At this juncture learned counsel for the appellants and the appellants present in Court readily offered to tender unqualified apology and to undertake they would he hound by the final decree in the Court if given against them.
7. The appellants have submitted written apology in which they have maintained that they did not deliberately violate the order of the Court, they beg un-conditional apology from this Court as well as from the learned Additional District Judge and that they could never think of violating order of the Court. It has also been undertaken by the appellants that they would comply with order of the learned Trial Court and will maintain status quo regarding the property.
8. In view of the fact that one of the appellant has already undergone imprisonment for number of days in execution of the impugned order and also for the reason that they have tendered unqualified apology and have placed themselves at the mercy of the Court, it is observed that the circumstances warrant that the unqualified apology of the appellants he accepted as they have already suffered considerably.
9. By accepting unqualified apology of the appellants, the contempt proceedings against them are dropped. They are, however, warranted to be careful in future. The appeal is allowed, and the impugned order is accordingly set aside, resultantly contempt application is disposed of in the above terms. The hail bonds submitted by the appellant are discharged.