Case Details

Citation(s)
1982 SLG 3014 = 1982 SLD 3014 = 1982 CLC 59
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 1550 of 1980, decided on 14th October, 1980.
Presented By: Muhammad Afzal Lone, J
Karamat Nazir Bhandari, A. A.-G. for Petitioners. Malik Noor Muhammad A wan for
Respondents.

SUB-DIVISIONAL CANAL OFFICER ETC.-Petitioners

VERSUS

FAZAL AHMED ETC.-Respondents

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXXIX, 1, 2

Law: Canal and Drainage Act, 1873

Section: 20, 68

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2-Temporary injunction-Three requirements of law namely; prima facie case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience, held, must co-exist for grant of temporary injunction. [Injunction]. (b) Canal and Drainage Act (VII of 1873) Ss. 20 & 68 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2-Injunction against water supply to a nursery granted by Addi tional District Judge without examining point as to which party would suffer irreparable injury by grant of injunction and balance of convenience lay in whose favour-Non-supply of water to nursery for irrigation purposes likely to result in its annihilation and material injury to petitioners-District Judge while deciding interlocutory matter seemingly giving a conclusive finding as to case having fell within ambit of S. 20 of Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, and Sub-Divisional Canal Officer passed order under S. 68 being without jurisdiction Finding of District Judge tending to prejudice course of action before trial Court order of District Judge set aside.--[Injunction]. Date of hearing: 14th October, 1980.                                                                                                                                                           JUDGMENT This revision petition has arisen out of a declaratory suit filed by the respondents questioning the validity of the order dated 12-3-1979, passed by the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer, Khanewal Sub-Division, Mian Channu, whereby the Sericulture Department's area measuring 72 acres utilized for running a mulberry nursery was added to the outlet in question. The respon dent's land was being irrigated through this outlet. Their case is that they were not served with any notice; the land of the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register