Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 4606 = 2026 SLD 4606 = 2026 PLJ 488
Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan
C.R. No. 38 of 2019
Presented By: Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi JUDGE
Mr. Muhammad Maalik Khan Langah, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. Muhammad Bakhsh Khakhi, Assistant Advocate General for
Respondents. Ex parte for
Respondents No. 1 & 3. Dates of hearings 17.03.2026.

MUHAMMAD ASIF QURESHI and others--Petitioners

VERSUS

HAKIM GHULAM MURTAZA and others--Respondents

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 54, 55

Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 2(3) O. XXXIX

Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)-- ----Ss. 54 & 55--Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), O. XXXIX R. 2(3)--Temporary injunction--Willful disobedience--Violation of injunction order--Knowledge of Court order--Service of injunction Civil contempt quasi-criminal proceedings attachment of property--imprisonment--Appreciation of evidence--Local commission report--Misreading and non-reading of evidence principle of proportionality quantum of punishment judicial discretion remand revisional jurisdiction--Permanent injunction--Possession dispute--Authority of Court orders--Trial Court had recorded a categorical finding that same was duly served upon Respondent No. 1--This finding is not only supported by documentary evidence on record but also stands fortified by unequivocal admission of Respondent No. 1 during his cross-examination--Such admission constituted best possible evidence against its maker and conclusively established that Respondent No. 1 had knowledge of restraining order--Once knowledge was established, next and more material aspect is violation of order--Respondent No. 1 had, in fact, violated injunction by interfering in possession of petitioners and raising construction over suit property--Record reflected that parties were afforded full opportunity to adduce evidence, and there was nothing to suggest that respondents were denied right of hearing or fair trial--In absence of any demonstrated prejudice or miscarriage of justice, objection regarding procedural irregularity was devoid of merit and could not be sustained--It would be just and proper to remand matter to Appellate Court for limited purpose of re-determining quantum of punishment--Appellate Court should, after affording opportunity of hearing to parties, consider all relevant factors including nature of violation, conduct of respondent, subsequent dismissal of suit, and principle of proportionality, and then pass a reasoned order regarding appropriate sentence in accordance with law--Petition partly allowed.       …
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register