1. Office was directed to send notice to the respondents but the respondents in spite of the notice did not enter appearance on 10-10-2000 and the interim order passed in C. M. No. l of 2000 was confirmed on the said date. Office sent notice to the parties on 17-10-2000 for 31-10-2000 in spite of notice nobody entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.1. Therefore, case is decided ex parte against respondent No. 1.
2. Petitioners submitted his admission form as regular candidate through Government F.C. College, Lahore to appear in the intermediate Part II Annual Examination, 1999. Respondent No. 2 informed the Controller of Examination of the respondent No. l on the ground of shortage of lectures alongwith other candidates of his College namely Mazhar A.I, Nazir Ahmed, H. Usman Sarwar, Faruukh Mansha, Rehan Farid Mustafa, M. Farooq Mubarik, Zeeshan Farooq Ammar Afzal and Tahir Malik. Therefore, petitioners withheld the roll numbers of all the aforesaid candidates including the petitioners. Petitioners filed suit for declaration 'with mandatory injunction before Civil Judge First Class alongwith application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 for issuance of roll number slips to the petitioners. Learned Civil Judge directed the petitioners to issue roll number slips to the petitioners forthwith. Petitioners submitted written statement and mentioned the aforesaid reasons withholding roll number slips of respondent No. l on account of shortage of lectures. Petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned trial Court filed appeal before the Additional District Judge on 9-7-1999. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal respondent No. l filed application under section 151, C. P.C. Before the learned District Judge for the declaration of his result card and issuance of the result card Learned Additional District Judge directed the petitioners provisionally result' card be issued to respondent No. 1 subject to all just exceptions.
2. Petitioners did not issue provisional result card to respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 filed contempt application before the Additional District Judge who issued notice to the petitioners. Petitioners submitted reply to the contempt application. Learned Additional District Judge instead of dismissing the contempt application issued show-cause notice to the petitioners vide impugned order, dated 18-4-2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners did not issue provisional result card to respondent No. l on the basis of the phrase used by the learned Presiding Officer in the impugned order of learned Additional District Judge subject to all just exceptions. He further submits that words "just all exceptions" means that the consent was given on the condition that the defendant would be entitled to take such plea as may be available to him in law. In support of his contention he relied upon Ghulam Muhammad v. Irshad Ahmad (PLD 1982 SC 282).
3. He further submits that the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court granted total relief to respondent No.1 in the garb of interim relief which is not permissible in the eyes of law. In support of his contention he relied upon 1997 SCMR 1508 (Muhammad Zaman Khan's case). He further ,submits that, the impugned order did not provide express direction to the petitioners to issue provisional result card to respondent No. l in presence of the phrase used by the learned Additional District Judge "just all exceptions". Therefore, petitioners did not commit any contempt of Court. In support of his contentions he relied upon PLD 1990 SC 787 (Qadeer Ahmad's case). He further submits that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter by virtue. Of sections 29 and 31 of the Punjab Boards Act, 1976. He further submits that roll number of one Tahir Malik was also withheld by the petitioners who filed Writ Petition No.7749 of 1999 which was dismissed by this Court vide order, dated 5-5-1999. Tahir Malik being aggrieved filed Intra-Court Appeal No.382 of 1999 which was also dismissed by the Division Bench vide order, dated 12-5-1999.
4. Similarly Imran Chaudhery filed Writ Petition NoJ493 of 1999 which was dismissed by this Court and Intra-Court Appeal filed by him was also dismissed. Hassan Awais also filed Writ Petition No.745 of 1999 which was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all these facts are mentioned in reply of the contempt petition in para. 3 but the learned Additional District Judge passed the impugned order without adverting to the reply of the petitioners. Even the case relied by the learned Additional District Judge 2000 CLC 387 (Said Muhammad v. Sultan Ahmad) wherein the relevant observation was, not considered in true prospectus by the learned Additional District Judge. This aspect of the case was not adverted to by the Courts below. Following dictum laid down in the case referred to above it is held that the Civil Judge lacks the jurisdiction to try the contempt petition. He is directed to make reference to the High Court. Learned Additional District Judge instead of sending reference to this Court passed the impugned order and directed the petitioners to appear before him.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself. It is settled proposition of law that total relief cannot be granted in the garb of interim relief as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Farid. Ahmad's case 1968 SCMR 88 and Muhammad Zaman Khan's case 1997 SCMR 1508. It is also settled proposition of law that when the basic order is without lawful authority then the superstructure shall fall on the ground automatically as per principle laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:- PLD 1958 SC 104 (Yousaf A.I's case).
6. PLD 1982 Lahore 1 (Crescent Sugar Mill's case).
7. It is also admitted fact that other candidates whose cases are exactly similar with the case of the petitioner filed writ petitions which were dismissed in limine and intra-Court appeals filed by the candidates were also dismissed. All these facts are mentioned in reply of the contempt petition in para.3 but the learned Additional District Judge passed the order without adverting to the reply of the petition. This fact brings the case in the area that the learned Additional District Judge did not apply his mind and decided the case in mechanical manner which is not in accordance-with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mollah Ejahar A.I's case PLD 1970 SC 173. After addition of section 24-A in the General Clauses Act even public functionaries are duty bound to redress the grievance of the citizen with reasons as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1998 SCMR 2268 (M/s. Airport Support Services' case). It is also settled proposition of law that a Judge must wear all the laws of the country on the sleeve, of his robe and failure of the counsel to properly advise is not a complete excuse in the matter as per principle laid down by the HoN'ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Sarwar's case PLD 1969 SC 278 and Mst. Salma Ifroze's case PLD 1992 SC 263. It is also settled proposition of law that judgment of this Court is binding on each and every organ of the' Province by virtue of Article 201 of the Constitution. The learned Additional District Judge passed the order in violation of the law laid down by the superior Courts in the aforesaid judgments, and initiated contempt proceedings against the petitioners without adverting to the meaning of the words "just all exceptions" which do not contain express directions to the petitioners to issue provisional result card to respondent No. l as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Qadeer Ahmad's case PLD 1990 SC 787. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred by virtue of sections 29 and 31 of the Punjab Board Act. 1976 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Rafique's case 1983 SCMR 1024. <p.m></p.m>