Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 636 of 1982, decided on 23rd April. 1983.

(From the judgment, dated 21st April, 1982 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, passed in Civil Revision No. 213‑81/BWP).

---Art. 185 (3) read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2‑Injunction‑Application for temporary injunction rejected by trial Court but allowed by appellate Court High Court, in revision, finding that order against which injunction sought had already been implemented‑Order of High Court quashing order of appellate Court‑Held, cannot be taken exception to [Injunction].

M. M. Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.

Zafarullah Cheema, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 23rd April, 1983.

The matter relates to an interlocutory order made under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. The petitioner, that is the Province of Punjab, brought a suit for a declaration and injunction against the order of the Superintending Canal officer, allowing Bashir Ahmad, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents, to draw his entire requirement of water from one outlet, i. e., No. 20722/L instead of two. An application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 was made in the suit which was rejected by the trial Court but was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Rahimyarkhan, in appeal. In revision moved by the respondents, it was brought to the notice of the High Court that the order of Superintending Canal Officer had already been implemented and as such the. application had become infructuous. The High Court accordingly by its order, dated 21‑4‑1982 quashed the order of the Additional District Judge.

2. Since the parties were at variance on the question whether the order of the Superintending Canal Officer had already been implemented, we summoned the officers from the Department. M/s. Sharif Ahmad, Superintending Canal Officer, Muzaffar Hussain, Executive Engineer, and Inayat Ullah, S. D. O., from the Department are present and inform this Court that the order was in fact already implemented and that the respon dents have been drawing water from the consolidated outlet No. 20722/L. That being so, no exception can be taken to the impugned order of the High Court. The petition is dismissed.

S. Q.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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