| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 1805 2005 SLD 1805 2005 PLD 316 |
Sindh High Court
High Court Appeals. No. 426 of 2003 and 2 of 2004, decided on 15th March, 2005. dates of hearing: 27th and 28th of January, 2005
ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND AZIZULLAH M. MEMON, JJ
Muhammad Anwar Tariq for Appellant (in H.C.A. No. 426 of 2003). S. Sami Ahmed for Appellant (in H.C.A. No. 2 of 2004). Muhammad Ali Jan for
Respondents Nos.1 to 4 (in H.C.A. No. 426 of 2003). Rasheed A.Razvi for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 (in H.C.A.No. 2 of
High Court Appeals. No. 426 of 2003 and 2 of 2004, decided on 15th March, 2005. dates of hearing: 27th and 28th of January, 2005
ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND AZIZULLAH M. MEMON, JJ
Muhammad Anwar Tariq for Appellant (in H.C.A. No. 426 of 2003). S. Sami Ahmed for Appellant (in H.C.A. No. 2 of 2004). Muhammad Ali Jan for
Respondents Nos.1 to 4 (in H.C.A. No. 426 of 2003). Rasheed A.Razvi for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 (in H.C.A.No. 2 of
Messrs YOUSUF SONS and another
VS
MUHAMMAD KHALID and others
Law: Contempt of Court Act, 1976
Section: 3,4
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.XXXIX,R.2(3),151
(a) Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976)--- ----Ss.3 & 4---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, R.2(3) & S.151---Violation of injunction order---High Court appeal---Application in the suit under Ss.3 & 4, Contempt of Court Act, 1976 read with O.XXXIX, R.2(3) and s.151, C.P.C., agitating the grievance to the effect that order of the High Court was violated by the appellants, with the prayer for their punishment, besides direction for deposit of the rent amount in Court which was withdrawn in violation of such order--Framing of charges/issues and affording of opportunity to the offenders---Requirements---Held, proceedings initiated in the present case on the basis of the application were not, in stricto senso, criminal proceedings, therefore it was not necessary for the Court to have framed formal charge against the appellants---On service of notice of contempt proceedings, the appellants were well-informed and aware about initiation and pendency of contempt proceedings against them and. its ultimate consequences and in this background of the matter, full opportunity was afforded to them to meet the case with reference to violation of the order in-question which was* admittedly in their knowledge at the time of commission of acts forming basis for initiation of contempt proceedings for violation of injunction order by 'the appellants---Contention that non-framing of charges/issues or non-affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants before ordering their conviction by impugned order, had no force in circumstances--.Record showed that prima facie, a collusive game of fraud was played by the appellants for violation of order and their conduct during the pendency of the application was throughout contumacious---High Court in its impugned order had thoroughly examined the case of the appellants in a judicious manner and rightly convicted both the appellants for deliberate violation of the High Court order---High Court directed that appellants be taken into custody and remanded to the prison to serve their respective sentences---Principles. Muhammad Aslam v. Mahmood Ali and another PLD 1992 SC 104; Bakhtawar and others v. Amin and others…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492