1. ' SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.--- C.M.A. No,6644 of 2001 is an application seeking punishment of the respondent Muhammad Tariq for violating the interim order of the Court restraining him from raising further construction, dated 22-11-2001. Upon receipt of the application the following issues were framed by the Court on 27-11-2002:--
(i) Whether the respondent No,4 Tariq Baloch son of Karim Bux has committed disobedience of the injunction of this Court vide order, dated 5-12-2001 by raising construction and creating third party interest in Plots Nos.24, 25 and 26, Jangle Shah, near Jamia Masjid, Keamari, Karachi?
(ii) Whether aforesaid .Tariq Baloch is liable to be punished under the aforesaid provisions of law?
(iii) What should the order be?
2. ' In support of the application the General Secretary of the petitioner examined himself and deposed that an interim order restraining the respondent No,4 from raising further construction was passed when the building had been partially constructed. However, in blatant defiance of such order the respondent No,4 proceeded to complete construction whereupon the petitioner moved an application for contempt. The Nazir of the Court, who had earlier inspected the site was once again directed to carry out inspection. He was corroborated by the Deputy Nazir of the Court who had the occasion to inspect the property under orders of the Court, dated 15-10-2001 and 9-9- 2002. He deposed that during the time of his first and second inspection substantial construction had been raised by the respondent Tariq Baloch/Muhammad Tariq and interest in the property had also been transferred in favour of third parties. He relied upon his detailed report, dated 26-9- 2002. An opportunity to cross-examine him was offered to the learned counsel for the respondent/contemner Muhammad Tariq but he declined to avail the same.
3. ' Apart from the Deputy Nazir Mr. Adil Umer, Deputy Controller of Buildings, also appeared as a witness and produced parawise comments signed by him shows that construction was raised by the respondent No,1 despite communication of the interim order of the Court.
4. On the other hand respondent/contemner Muhammad Tariq decided to examine himself on oath.
5. In substance he admitted the allegation of defiance of the Court orders and stated that while two blocks in the building had been raised prior to receipt of the interim order the third one was raised under public pressure. He stated that he had even agreed to return the amounts received from allottees of the apartments but they refused to accept the same and insisted that duly constructed apartments should be delivered to them. It was under such pressure that he was constrained, to violate the order of the Court and regretted the same. He also admitted that he did not apply to the Court for modification of the interim order.
6. ' The factum of defiance of the Court order has been practically admitted and there could be no dispute on this question. The next question for consideration is what punishment should be awarded. Mr. Abdul Nabi Bhatti referred to the respondent's own assertion that the defiance was committed under public pressure. We fail to see how this could be pleaded in mitigation of an offence. In every civilized society an individual is required to act within the limitation 9f law and no highhandedness could be allowed in the name of public pressure. We have considered all aspects of the case and have also taken note of the behaviour of respondent/contemner Muhammad Tariq in these proceedings. It may be recalled that the respondent/contemner was avoiding service of process and according to bailiff's report taken into consideration by order, dated 22-11-2001 he had refused to receive notice, abused the process server and drove him out by force. Eventually, he had to be served through the S.H.O. Of the area as is evident from the order, dated 5-12-2001. He did not contest the allegations of misbehaviour but upon unconditional apology being submitted a lenient view was taken.
7. Under the circumstances while the respondent/contemner Muhammad Tariq does not deserve any leniency we would, on pure humanitarian considerations, order that respondent/contemner Muhammad Tariq be detained in Central Prison, Karachi for a period of three months. We would make no order as to attachment of property but direct that he be taken into custody at once.
8. ' The contempt application under Article 204 of the Constitution read with Order 39, rules, 3 and 4, C.P.C. And section 151, C.P.C. Stands disposed of in the above terms.