Law:

Section:

Canal and Drainage Act (VIII of 1873)--S.32--Mere fact that there was possibility of the respondents giving up or not utilizing the extra irrigation time for the orchard would not be a ground for depriving them at present of their extra utilization of the Nikkal. Sajjad Hussain, Advocate instructed by S. Abdul Asim Jafri, Advocate-­on-Record for Petitioner. S.M. Masud, Advocate instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th March, 1989. ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant, against the dismissal by the High Court, of his Civil Revision. It had arisen out of a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction filed by the respondents' side in respect of a dispute between the parties determined under the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873. According to facts stated by the learned counsel the respondents' side is purchaser of a piece of land from its owner who had owned it jointly with the petitioner--he owning 2/3rd of it. It is further stated that prior to the sale in respondents' favour of the remaining 1/3rd the question of utilization of the tail discharge from the water-course known as Nikkal, was by agreement between the co-sharers divided proportionate to their shares. After the sale the respondents made attempts to get their share of the Nikkal increased but ultimately having failed before the Canal Authorities they filed a civil suit which having been dismissed by the trial Court, their appeal was allowed by the learned District Court. The petitioner's civil revision having been dismissed, leave to appeal has now been sought. Although some technical questions have also been raised in the memorandum of the petition but the stress of the learned counsel when pressing this petition was on merits. As contended by the learned…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492