MUHAMMAD ZAFAR versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH D.O.R. PAKPATTAN SHARIF
The suit divisional canal officer made a new outlet for the declaration and temporary injunction of section 20 of the Special Relief Act (in 1877), section 42 civil procedure code (v. 1908), OLXX, RR1 and 2 suits. The respondent's request for approval was accepted. The case was sent to the Superintendent Canal Officer for verification of the case, pending the canal authorities for nine years after which the successor superintendent canal officer confirmed the order of the divisional canal officer without accepting the observations of his predecessor. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit from both the trial and the appellate court, dismissing the application for a stay order, alleging that both lower courts decided the application without recording their evidence despite the fact that the canal authorities Neither did they act. Spot inquiry nor notice was issued to the relevant lane as per Section 20 of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, before the required faulty order was passed, the accused had sufficient cause to suffer irreparable harm, the balance of the facility was also in favor of the defendants. Which was supposed to be given notice, order was allowed by the High Court and orders were ordered to be set aside under the direction of the lower court to decide the case within four months. had gone
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
