Law:

Section:

(a) Words and phrases-- Word "jurisdiction"-Meaning of. (b) Criminal trial--- Jurisdiction-Order recorded by a Court suffering from inherent jurisdiction-Order recorded in usurpation of jurisdiction, held, an absolute nullity.-[Jurisdiction). (c) Criminal trial--- Jurisdiction-Order of detention in civil prison, recorded by a Civil Judge, discharged by Sessions Judge having absolutely no jurisdiction to do so-Impugned order, held, suffered from inherent want of jurisdiction and an absolute nullity-Order set aside, in circumstances-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, r. 2 (iii).-[Jurisdiction]. ORDER The petition is addressed against an order of learned Sessions Judge, Mirpur, recorded on 17th March, 1984, whereby sentence of imprisonment awarded to the respondents by Sub-Judge, Dadyal, in exercise of powers under Order XXXIX, rule 2 (iii), C. P. C. for a period of 6 months each, was suspended. 2. The controversy has arisen out of a suit for perpetual injunction filed by the petitioner against the defendant-respondents in the subordinate Court. The petitioner also moved an application for interim injunction whereby defendant-respondents were directed to abstain from raising construction in the disputed place till the decision of the suit. The interim injunction was issued on 31st December, 1983. ' Subsequently, the petitioner moved the trial Court for adequate action for disobeying the injunction. The learned Sub-Judge proceeded against the defendant respondents under the provisions of Order XXXIX, rule 2 (iii), C. P. C. and ordered their detention in civil prison for a term of 6 months. The detention order was challenged in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge on various counts. The respondents also moved for suspension of execution- of detention till the decision of appeal. The learned Sessions Judge felt persuaded to order suspension of executiob of detention .on furnishing of bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000 each. The order was recorded on 17th March, 1984. 3. The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order on the following grounds: (i) That the order of civil Court was not subject to appeal before the Sessions Judge; (ii)…