ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

H.C.A. No.300 of 2017

Date	Order with signature of Judge

PRESENT:

Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan

Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito

For Directions

For orders on CMA No.609/2026

25-08-2026

Mr. Izhar Alam Farooqui respondent No.9 in person.

---------

ARSHAD HUSSAIN KHAN J; Through the instant Contempt Application (CMA No. 609/2026) filed under Sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, Respondent No. 9 (Izhar Alam Farooqui, Advocate) seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against ten (10) named alleged contemnors, comprising private parties and official respondents, for the alleged willful defiance of the undertaking dated 26-08-2017 and the final judgment passed by this Court on 11.09.2019 in the instant High Court Appeal.

The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant application are that the captioned High Court Appeal arose out of an order dated 27.05.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Suit No.1150 of 1991. The said appeal was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 11.09.2019, while affirming, inter alia, that the private Appellants were encroachers having no locus standi in respect of the subject land. However, in paragraph 7 of the said judgment, specific directions were issued to the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) and Deputy Commissioner to ensure that no fresh encroachment or construction was raised over the suit land.

Respondent No.9 had previously also initiated contempt proceedings through C.M.A. No.5314 of 2023 and C.M.A. No.1034 of 2024, alleging violation by the private alleged contemnors of the undertaking dated 26.08.2017 concerning Plot No.D-3, Alam Nagar Society, Block-6, Gulistan-e-Johar, Karachi (the “suit land”), as well as failure on the part of the concerned officials to enforce the directions issued by this Court. The said contempt proceedings were, however, dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22.04.2025, inter alia, on the grounds of non-maintainability, inordinate delay and absence of tangible material establishing willful disobedience of the orders of this Court.

Respondent No.9, appearing in person, submits that following dismissal of the earlier contempt proceedings vide order dated 22.04.2025, the matter was assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan through Criminal Appeal No.20-K of 2025, which was ultimately dismissed as not pressed. He contends that, notwithstanding the earlier proceedings, private alleged contemnors Nos.1 and 2 continue to violate the undertaking dated 26.08.2017 by physically obstructing him from raising a boundary wall around suit land and by renting out the subject land for commercial purposes. He further submits that, despite several written communications addressed to the police and administrative authorities between 2022 and 2026, official alleged contemnors Nos.4 to 10 have deliberately failed to take appropriate action to prevent and remedy the alleged continuing violations.

We have heard Respondent No. 9 and perused the material available on record.

The primary premise upon which Respondent No.9 has once again approached this Court is that, while disposing of Criminal Appeal No.20-K of 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan suggested that he may file a fresh application before this Court. However, a bare perusal of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not reflect any such observation, suggestion or liberty having been granted. Moreover, the mere filing of a fresh application, substantially founded upon the same allegations, without curing the fundamental defects identified in the earlier proceedings, cannot by itself render the present application maintainable. It is pertinent to note that, while dismissing C.M.A. No.1034 of 2024 vide order dated 22.04.2025, this Court had explicitly observed as follows:-

“……..Even otherwise, the question whether any encroachment has been made by the appellants over the subject property cannot be decided in a contempt application, as it requires evidence. Prima facie no directions were issued to all the contemnors which they have violated. More so, if any encroachment has been made, it can independently be dealt with under the relevant provision of law and not in an appeal filed against a decision in some miscellaneous applications.

4. We have also seen that on this matter directions were issued to the police officials, but nothing has been provided to show that before filing this application the applicants had approached the concerned SSP and DIGP with the order of the Court to seek their help. Therefore, we find this application as not maintainable, and accordingly dismiss it.”

It may be observed that contempt jurisdiction is essentially intended to uphold the authority and dignity of the Court and to address willful and deliberate disobedience of a clear and unequivocal judicial command. Such jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a substitute for execution proceedings or as a means to secure possession, removal of alleged encroachments, or adjudication and enforcement of disputed proprietary rights. If Respondent No.9 seeks possession of Plot No.D-3, removal of alleged trespassers or encroachers, or enforcement of any right, title or interest claimed therein, his remedy lies before the competent civil forum in appropriate proceedings, including execution proceedings, if otherwise maintainable, arising out of Civil Suit No.1150 of 1991.

Moreover, mere reiteration of substantially the same allegations against private individuals and public officials, several years after the final judgment dated 11.09.2019 and after dismissal of the earlier contempt proceedings, without producing any fresh, specific and independently verifiable material demonstrating willful disobedience of a subsisting direction of this Court, does not make out even a prima facie case for exercise of contempt jurisdiction.

In view of the foregoing facts and observations, we find that the instant contempt application is devoid of merit and does not disclose any ground warranting exercise of contempt jurisdiction by this Court. Accordingly, CMA No.609 of 2026 is dismissed in limine.

JUDGE

Naveed PA.