Case Details

Citation(s)
1962 SLG 2828 = 1962 SLD 2828 = 1962 PLD 317
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 249 of 1961, decided on 30th January 1962.
Presented By: Abdul Aziz Khan and Jamil Husain Rizvi, JJ
Abdur Rashid for Petitioners.   Muhammad Yaqub Awan for
Respondents.

MUHAMMAD SAEED AND OTHERS-Defendant-Petitioners  

VERSUS

  FATEH MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS-Plaintiff-Respondents

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2

  Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2-- Civil Court has jurisdiction to issue temporary injunction if not curtailed by any other enactment.   Northern India Canal and Drainage Act (VII of 1873), S. 68-Plaintiffs filing suit challenging order of Divisional Canal Officer-No temporary injunction suspending operation of warabandi sanctioned by Divisional Canal Officer under S. 68, can be issued by Civil Court-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2-[Muhammad Ishaq v. Muhammad P L D 1958 Lah. 717 overruled].   Order passed under section 68, Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 is final as to the use or distribution of water for any crop sown or growing at the time when such an order is made, which means that a Civil Court will have no power to set aside the order so far as it relates to the distribution of water for any crop sown or standing at the time of the order. The prohibition is absolute and the Civil Courts are completely debarred from interfering with the order to that extent. However, the power to set aside the order is not completely taken away from the Civil Courts and it is provided that the order shall remain in force thereafter until set aside by the decree of a Civil Court.   The operation of such order cannot, in any way, be suspended or affected unless there is a final adjudication by a Civil Court setting aside the order of the Divisional Canal Officer.   Muhammad Ishaq v. Muhammad P L D 1958 Lah. 717 overruled.   Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2-- Allegation that order passed by Divisional Canal Officer was not passed in accordance with provisions of S. 68, Canal and Drainage Act (VII of 1873) cannot be considered while deciding application for temporary injunction. JUDGMENT   JAMIL HUSAIN RIZVI, J.-The petitioners are defendants in a suit for a declaration pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Toba Tek Singh. The suit against them was to the effect that the Divisional Canal Officer Jhang Division, by his order dated the 7th of Aril 1961, had wrongly effected a change in the warabandi of outlet No. 72208/1, of Rajbah Khewra, Chak No.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register