' These proceedings for contempt of Court arise from an application on the original side in arbitration proceedings in this Court. An application was moved by Zaman Textile Mills Ltd. Against Messrs (1) Zafar Brothers, ( ) Abdul Lacs. (3) Allauddin Munshi for stay of the arbitration. A notice was orde ed to be issued and ad interim stay was also granted. On 29-9-1974 bailiff Muhammad All of this Court took these notices and stay orders for service. Service was effected on respondents 2 and 3 but respondent No 1 could nr t be served as he was not available at his residence and the bailiff was told that he would come at 6 p.m. When the bailiff again went there along with the agent of the applicant and offered the process to the respondent for his signature the respondent took him inside, tore the process pap:rs into pieces and gave the bailiff a beating. The bailiff ran out to save himself when the respondent used filthy language regarding him and also regarding the High Court. It being late on that day and the next day being Sunday an application was presented by the bailiff in this behalf to the Registrar of the High Court on 1-7-1974. The statement of the bailiff was recorded and the matter was placed before my Lord the Chief Justice who passed orders on 3-7.1974 that action be taken in contempt by issue of notice to the respondent.
2. The matter came up before my learned brother Abdul Hayee Kureahi, J., who recorded the evidence of complainant Muhammad Ali bailiff, Tayvab, Manager Zaman Textile Mills, Zafar Muhammad respondent, his neighbour Moinuddin, one Parves Siddiqui another neighbour and Kbalid Beg architect. Daud and Moinuddin clerks of this Court dealing with process in civil matters were also examined as Court witnesses.
3. After completion of the evidence the matter was partly before my learned brother but thereafter the matter was being adjourned f further arguments until my learned brother Mr. Justice Abdul Ray Kureshi had to leave for Islamabad before judgment could be delis vered.
4. I have heard the arguments of Mr. Usman Ghani, Assistant Advocate-General on behalf of the applicant and Mr. Rauf Ahmed on behalf of the respondent. I have also gone through the evidence recorded in the case. Mr. Rant has pointed out that the charge of contempt can divided into two parts the first part relates to objectionable language alleged to have been used by the respondent in respect of the High Court; the second part relates to tearing off the process and manhandling of the Court bailiff resulting in indirect contempt of the High Court. Regarding the first part had been taken inside he had been beaten by the respondent who tore off the papers. When the bailiff ran out to save himself the respondent and his oth compainone came out after him and used filthy language against t High Court. In the statement of the bailiff before the Registrar also th bailiff stated that after he came out the respondent and others also came ou after him and used filthy language against the High Court. In evidence, however, recorded in this Court the bailiff made a contradictory statement that after he was called inside respondent Zatar Muhammad snatched the papers and tore off the same stating filthy words regarding the Court and regarding himself.
These words have been mentioned in Urdu. The only other witness Tayyab has on the ether hand deposed, that on coming out after the beating Muhammad All met him outside and related what had happened to him. W bile they were both going towards the car, Zatar Ahmed shouted from a distance some words regarding the Court. These words were mentioned by the witness in Urdu The words, according to this witness, were totally different from the words which were reported to have been used according to the evidence of the complainant. Thus there is discrepancy regarding place and time when the respondent used filthy language regarding the High Court and the actual words or the language used in this regard. Much reliance cannot, therefore, be placed on the evidence regarding the allegation of use of filthy language by the respondent for the High Court.
5. Regarding the other charge, the version of the respondent is that the bailiff had come to serve the process on him at 11 p.m. That he had a meeting with the architect at his office till 9-30 p.m. On that date. He then went to the site to make payment to the workmen and reached the house by about 10-45 p.m.; that it was at 11 p.m. When the bailiff along with one other person came and knocked at the door and told him that he had brought a notice for service; that he wanted to note down the time as 1 p.m. But the bailiff did not agree to that and took back the papers. The bailiff then left threatening and abusing him. The respondent has examined his neighbours in support of this version. He has also examined the architect to show that he had a meeting with him up to 8-30 p.m. On that day.
6. The incident was apparently not as peaceful as the respondent has tried to represent. The bailiff had produced the pieces of the torn process. It is hard to believe that he must have done it himself to support a false charge. It is, however, possible that since the respondent was not present in his house during day time and was to come home late in the evening the bailiff went to his house again for a second time after sunset. Possibly he went to him late in the evening when the respondent declined to accept service resulting in an altercation. Mr. Rant Ahmed has accordingly argued that this attempt to serve the process at night time after sunset was an illegal act op the part of the bailiff and he had known it that under the circumstances resistance of the respondent to illegal service sought to be effected would be no offence as the bailiff was not performing his duty lawfully but was attempting to do something contrary to law.
7. Mr. Usman Mani, Assistant Advocate-General admits that the service could legally be effected only between sunrise and sunset and after sunset the respondent was not bound to accept service. Under these circumstances no offence in the nature of contempt appears to hive been made out. The show-cause notice issued against the respondent is accordingly discharged.
Notice discharged. .111