Case Details

Citation(s)
1970 SLG 3219 1970 SLD 3219 = 1970 SCMR 887
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 134-D of 1969, decided on 15th June 1970.
Presented By: Hamoodur Rahman, C. J. and M. R. Khan, J
Nizamuddin Haider, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. S. Hoda, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.

Sree GOUR NITAI SAHA-Petitioner

VERSUS

ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), BAKERGANJ AND 5 OTHERS-Respondents

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962

Section: 123

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 25th November 1969, in Civil Rule No. 1326 (s.m.) of 1969). (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 123-Contempt of superior Courts-High Court itself satisfied that no case of its contempt made out-Interference of Supreme Court-Not called for. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 123-Contempt of Court-Person accused of having disobeyed orders of Court and having thus committed contempt of Court not impleaded as party in application for contempt-Such person not impleaded as party even in petition for special leave to appeal-Such fact alone, held, sufficient for rejection of contempt application by High Court. Date of hearing : 15th June 1970. JUDGMENT M. R. KHAN, J.-The petitioner brought Title Suit No. 4 of 1966 in the Second Court of Subordinate Judge, Barisal against the Province of East Pakistan, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Bakerganj, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from making any settlement of the suit land to any body else. The petitioner prayed for an ad interim injunction, but the prayer was rejected both by the trial Court and the appellate Court. The petitioner then moved a revisional application in the High Court of East Pakistan and succeeded in obtaining an ad interim injunction. It was alleged that Mr. K. M. A. Rab, the then Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Bakerganj approved settlement of the suit land in spite of the ad interim injunction. Accordingly, the petitioner made an application in the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register