Case Details

Citation(s)
2009 SLG 569 2009 SLD 569 2009 CLC 1000
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.383 of 2009, heard on 27-03-2009
IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MUHAMMAD ASLAM, LUMBERDAR

VS

SUB-DIVISIONAL CANAL OFFICER, FAISALABAD and 2 others

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXXIX,r.1,2,S.115

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXXIX,r.1,2,S.115

Law: Canal and Drainage Act, 1873

Section: 68A

Canal and Drainage Act (VIII of 1873)-------S. 68-A---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Interim injunction, re-calling of---Restoration of water course---Temporary arrangement---Khal (watercourse) in question was passing through land of plaintiff who dismantled the same and filed suit to restrain Canal Authorities from exercising jurisdiction under S.68-A of Canal and Drainage Act, 1873---Trial Court declined to grant interim injunction against exercise of jurisdiction by Canal Authorities under S.68-A of Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 but Lower Appellate Court allowed the application and granted interim injunction in favour of plaintiff---Validity--Khal (watercourse) was constructed with mutual consent of parties and that was running at the spot, then the question whether S.68-A of Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 would be applicable as it did not find sanction and mentioned in contour plan, the same was to be decided by Civil Court after recording of evidence of parties---When Khal (watercourse) existed at spot and defendant and others had been irrigating their land through that watercourse, then, prima facie ingredients of irreparable loss and balance of convenience leaned in favour of defendant---Even otherwise, defendant and others had been using watercourse in question for irrigating their land even after purchase of land by plaintiff for more than 2/3 years with their mutual acquiescence and consent had been present all along and dismantling of watercourse apparently would cause inconvenience to defendant---Order passed by Lower Appellate Court granting interim injunction in favour of plaintiff suffered from irregularities and infirmities---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside the order passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court--Revision was allowed in circumstances. Abdul Majeed and others v. Iftikhar Ahmad and others 2004 CLC 1951 fol. Abdul Qayyum and another v. Niaz Muhammad and another 1992 SCMR 613; Shafiq Ahmad and others v. Abdul Latif Khan and others PLD 1961 Lah. 439; Rao Muhammad Mubin v. D.C.O, Irrigation Department 2007 CLC 1168 and Shams-ud-Din v. Province of Punjab through…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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