| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1980 SLG 3102 = 1980 SLD 3102 = 1980 SCMR 89 |
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 245 of 1979, decided on 31st December, 1979. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 27-3-1979, in F. A. O. No. 264/79).
Presented By: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Karam Elahee Chauhan and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ
Ch. Aziz Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, AdvocateonRecord for Petitioners. Qamaruddin, Advocate, Supreme Court and Abid Nawaz, Advocate onRecord for
Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. '
BAKHTAWAR ETC. -Petitioners
VERSUS
AMIN ETC. -Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O. XLI, r. 5, O: XXXIX, r. 2 (3), 15
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. XLI, r. 5 Appeal to Supreme CourtStay order Stay order granted by Supreme Court on undertaking given by petitionerDeliberate violation of such undertakingHeld, can be taken serious notice of.[Supreme CourtStay orderAppeal (civil). Muhammad Salim Khan Yusafzai v. K. Mohiuddin 1968 S C M R 557 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O: XXXIX, r. 2 (3) read with S. 151InjunctionParty against whom injunction order passed doing something for its own advantage and to disadvantage of other partyCourt can, under its inherent jurisdiction bring back such party to original positionPlea that since tad interim order was later discharged, violation of such order was no longer cognisable Held, without substance.[Jurisdiction Injunction]. When by contravening an injunction order the party against whom the order is passed has done something for its own advantage to disadvantage of the other party, it is open to the Court under its inherent jurisdiction to bring back the party to a position where it originally stood, as if the order had not been contravened. The exercise of this inherent power is based on the principle that no party can be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong in spite of the order to the contrary passed by the Court. Ayyammal and another v. Thangavelu Padayachi A I R 1950 Mad. 317 ; Maharaj Bahadur Singh v. A. H. Forbes A I R 1922 Pat. 382 ; The State of Bihar v. Usha Devi and another A I R 1956 Pat. 455 ; Magna and another v. Rustam and another A I R 1963 Raj. 3 and B. F. Varghese v. Joseph Thomas A I R 1957 TravCo. 286 ref. It was argued that since ultimately the ad interim order of status quo was later discharged by the Court, violation of such order was not cognisable: Held, such plea has no substance. Bagga and others v. Saleh and others A I R 1915 P C 106 and Ottapur ak kal Thazath Suppi and others v. Alabi Mashur Koyanna Koya Kunhi Koya A I R 1917 Mad. 448 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) S. 58 and O. XXXI, r. 2 (2) read with S. 36 & O. XXI, r. 32 (1) Securing compliance and execution of an order of injunction by directing arrest and detention of judgmentdebtorHeld, a matter…