Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXXIX,r.2(3),O.III,r.2(3),O.XLIII,r.1( r),S.104(1)(i)

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXXIX,r.2(3),O.III,r.2(3),O.XLIII,r.1( r),S.104(1)(i)

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 104(1)(i), O. XXXIX, R.2(3) & O.XLIII, R.1(r)---Disobedience of injunctive order---Effect---Injunction order passed under O.XXXIX, R.2, C.P.C. in favour of respondent, was not challenged by the petitioners in any manner---Appeal was provided for against said order under S.104(1)(i), read with O.XLIII, R.1(r), C.P.C., but no such appeal was filed by the petitioners---Said order, in circumstances had attained finality---No allegation was levelled that the court had no jurisdiction to issue the temporary injunction; in view of the unchallenged findings that the injunction had been disobeyed, the court had the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same and to order restoration of possession taken in violation of the injunctive order---Mere fact that the injunction was later vacated by the Court or that the suit itself was dismissed subsequently, would not wipe off the disobedience/contempt committed by the petitioner. Altaf-ur-Rehman for Petitioners. Ch. Javed Akhtar Jajja for Respondent No.1. Nemo for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 5th December, 2007. JUDGMENT MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- A suit for permanent injunction filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioners and respondent No.2 was contested and decreed by the learned trial Court on 21-4-2000. A first appeal filed by the petitioners against the said judgment and decree was allowed by an Additional District Judge, Pasroor on 24-2-2004 and the suit was dismissed. It may be noted that during the pendency of the said suit an injunctive order had been issued by the learned trial Court. Respondent No.1 filed an application under Order XXXIX, rule 2(3), C.P.C. complaining the disobedience of the said injunctive order. The application was proceeded with and after a trial it was found that the petitioners have disobeyed the injunction and they were directed to vacate the land, possession whereof had been taken in violation of the injunctive order and to deliver it to respondent No.1. This was done vide order, dated 21-2-2000. This order was never challenged by the petitioners in any manner prescribed by law. Civil Revision No.1380 of 2004 was filed by respondent No.1…

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