Dr. MANZOOR HUSSAIN MALIK vs Mahar MUHAMMAD KHALID AHMAD, ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), BAHAWALPUR Ss

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Dr. MANZOOR HUSSAIN MALIK VS Mahar MUHAMMAD KHALID AHMAD, ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), BAHAWALPUR Ss. 3, 5 & 19---Contempt of Court---Power to punish---Object, purpose and scope---Non-implementation of Court order---Complainant, status of---Appellants were aggrieved of dismissal of their contempt proceedings filed against non-compliance of injunctive order passed by Court---Validity---Power relating to contempt is confined to "power to punish"---Such power is not contemplated as a mechanism for execution, enforcement or implementation of orders of Court---Alleged contemnor is subject to punishment, however, after undergoing punishment, the contemnor cannot be coerced to implement an order---Power to punish a contemnor invariably implies that all orders of Court have to be implemented otherwise contempt proceedings would follow---Power of contempt can be expanded and structured to meet changing needs and requirements of the society---Contempt jurisdiction can validly be regulated by law and subject thereto by rules made by the Court underlying the rationale that power of contempt is a serious, significant and unfettered power required to be exercised in a manner which prevents its abuse and ensures its effectiveness so as to strike a balance between the two extremes---Contempt proceedings can be initiated suo motu by Court or at the instance of any party who has status of a mere informer---Once information is laid before Court, the informer loses his further right to pursue the same---Contempt proceedings or an appeal thereagainst does not lie at the desire of a litigant party---Primary purpose of civil contempt is always vindication of dignity of Court and administration of justice but it is also an additional tool for implementation and clarification of Court orders employed in the manner and to the extent in the sole discretion of Court---Directions in contempt proceedings do not constitute contempt but their "willful disobedience" may give rise to fresh contempt and may eradicate bona fide as a defense---Appeal is only competent as of right against order of conviction or sentence but not against order refusing to convict or resulting in exoneration---Appeal is not maintainable regarding orders refusing to initiate or dropping contempt proceedings at any stage after due satisfaction of Court---Appeal is competent regarding orders passed in contempt proceedings which are inherently without jurisdiction or void or coram non judice or for multiple reasons in the discretion of Appellate Court or of the nature requiring exercise of jurisdiction in appeal---Any observations made by Court in original or appellate proceedings have no bearing or effect on the merits of any pending adjudication between parties to the lis before any judicial forum---Inherent discretion of Court can be enlarged and invoked to thwart any real threat to judicial authority and constitutional disorder---In the present case contempt proceedings were initiated by the Court against respondents at the instance of appellants regarding non-compliance of its orders---Court after its due satisfaction that there was no "willful disobedience" by alleged contemnors dropped contempt proceedings---Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Dr. MANZOOR HUSSAIN MALIK vs Mahar MUHAMMAD KHALID AHMAD, ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), BAHAWALPUR Ss — 2024 PLD 109 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLD