Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision Application No. 326 of 1978, decided on 19th December, 1983.

---‑O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2 and S. 115‑Temporary injunction‑Applica tion filed by plaintiff for temporary injunction dismissed by trial Court but allowed by District Judge in appeal‑Interference in revision declined by High Court as contentions raised by parties had direct bearing on final disposal of suit and any view expressed by Court was likely to prejudice one side or other‑Direction, how ever, were issued for disposal of suit within 4 months.

A. Mateen for Petitioners.

Muhammad Sharif for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 5th December, 1983.

This Revision Application is directed against the judgment, dated 6th November, 1978 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 57 of 1978 passed by the learned District Judge, Tharparkar.

2. The facts which give rise to the above civil revision‑ are that, the petitioners and the respondent No. 1 are the owners/Khatedars of agricul tural land which is situated on Watercourse No. 109/IR Ex. Lakhaki Distributory, Mirpurkhas.

3. It is averred that the respondent No. 1 was using illegally 2 Pahars of irrigation water as lift allowance since 1952 on the aforesaid Watercourse No. 109/1 Ex. Lakhaki Distributory, Mirpurkhas. There was great discontentment amongst the Khatedars due to his illegal and wrongful drawings of water by the respondent No. 1. One Khatedar named Ataullah of the same watercourse, therefore, moved the Irrigation Depart ment in 1976 for cancellation of 2 Pahars of so‑called lift allowance used by the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1, who is a great influential person, managed to compound with this gentleman and thus the wrong which was caused to the other Khatedars on this watercourse could not be rectified. All attempts by the Khatedars could not get this wrong rectified from the Irrigation Department due to great influence of the respondent No. 1.

4. It is averred that in 1977 the applicants were forced to make an application to Martial Law Administrator, Tharparkar, which was duly endorsed and forwarded to the Executive Engineer, Jamrao Division, Mirpurkhas on 19th September, 1977. The Executive Engineer directed the Assistant Engineer, Mirpurkhas, to make enquiries in presence of the respondent No. 1 and applicants visited the site and made such report to Executive Engineer, Jamrao Division, Mirpurkhas, reporting the lands of respondent No. 1, are flow lands and there is no hurla or lift being opera ted by him, therefore, the 2 Pahars i. e. 6 hours water may be cancelled. On this report the Superintending Engineer, Nara Canal, Hyderabad, cancelled this concession on 19th October, 1978 and such notice was served on the respondent No. 1. The respondent being aggrieved by the order of the Superintending Engineer, filed a suit being Suit No. 204 of 1977 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mirpurkhas, alongwith the suit, an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. for the grant of ad interim injunction. The applicants filed the objections denying the various allegations made against them. The learned Senior Civil Judge, after bearing the parties, dismissed the application. The respon dent No. 1 filed an appeal before the District Judge, Tharparkar, against the order, dated 24th October, 1978 which was heard by the learned District Judge, who after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal and set aside the order, dated 14th October, 1978 vide his impugned judgment, dated 6th November, 1978.

5. The applicants being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned District Judge, have preferred this Revision Application on the grounds mentioned in the memo. of the petition.

6. In support of the above revision, I have heard Mr. Abdul Matin, learned counsel for the applicants, and Mr. Muhammad Sharif, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

7. Mr. Abdul Matin has urged that the respondent No. 1 has not established before the learned Courts below his legal right for this alleged extra six hours of water. He has. urged that this concession was rightly withdrawn as the respondent No. 1 was not found to be entitled to it.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Sharif has contended that the respondent No. 1 was not heard before passing the order.

9. I consider that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, are such as have a direct bearing on the final disposal of the suit, pending between the parties before the learned civil Court, and, therefore, any view expressed by me at this stage is likely to prejudice one side or the other. I would not, therefore, like to interfere in the matter at this stage.

10. Before I part with this case, I would like to make it clear that what ever observations made by the learned Appellate Court, should not affect in any way the disposal of the suit, itself on merit. I direct the learned trial Court not only to expedite the suit but to dispose it of within four months from the date of this order.

In the result, the application is disposed of in the above terms. Under these peculiar circumstances, there would be no order as to costs.

M. B. A. Appeal disposed of.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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