Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 1364 of 1979, decided on 3rd November, 1982.

‑ O. XXXIX, r. I‑Temporary injunction, issue of‑Respondent given notice to contest proceedings before, passing impugned order and prima fact no case made out warranting issuing of temporary injunc tion‑Impugned order, set aside, in circumstances.

Mian Abdul Rashid for Petitioner.

New for Respondents NoL I to 3.

Muhammad Hanif Awan for Respondents Nos. 4 to 6

This petition seeking revision of the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, dated the 19th November, 1979, accepting the appeal of respondents Nos. 4 to 6 against and. reversing the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Faisalabad, dated the 15th October, 1979, and thereby restraining the petitioner and respondents Nos. I to 3 from imple menting the impugned order providing additional water supply for irrigating the petitioner's garden spread over six acres of land arises out of the following circumstances. For his 13 Acres 6 kanals of land the petitioner was getting canal water supply for 6 hours 9 minutes before he applied for additional water supply for 12 Acres under garden. lie was given additional supply of water for 4 hours 25 minutes for six Acres only. By means of suit respondents Nos. 4 to 6 challenged the validity of the decision of the canal authorities on the grounds that they had not been given an opportunity of being heard before passing of the order and that they would suffer irreparable loss if the additional water supply was given to the petitioner at their cost. They moved for issuance of temporary injunction against the petitioner and respondents Nos. I to 3 preventing them from implementing the impugned order. The learned trial Court rejected their application observing that they had no prima-facie case, that the balance of convenience did not lie in their favour and that they would not suffer irreparable loss. The learned appellate Court took the contrary view and granted the injunction. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

2. According to the Irrigation Department water was supplied to the various share‑holders at the rate of 27 minutes per Acre before the impugned order was passed and after the petitioner was to be given additional supply of water the share‑holders would receive water at, the rate of 26.88 minutes per Acre, that is, their water supply per Acre would be diminished by 0.12 minute per Acre. Such an insignificant decrease in water supply may not cause irreparable loss to respondents Nos. 4 to 6.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 4 to 6 that his clients bad not been given notice before passing of the impugned order was given a lie to by respondents Nos. I to 3. Therefore, respondents Nos. 4 to 6 had no prima facie case warranting issuance of temporary injunction. The order passed by the learned Additional District Judge in the circumstances of the case was not legal and proper. The petition consequently accepted, the order of the learned Additional District Judge is set aside and that of the learned Senior Civil Judge is restored. The parties will bear their own costs.

4. As the suit has become fairly old and it is desirable that the dispute should be decided expeditiously, the learned Civil Judge seized with its trial is directed to give it priority over other cases and decide it within three months. He will not be influenced by any observation made by this Court in this order.

M. Y. M. order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.