Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition No.81‑R of 1983, decided on 13th November, 1983.
(From the order dated 13‑4‑1983 of the Lahore High Court passed in Civil Revision No.633 of 1983).
‑‑‑Arts.185(3) & 199‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, r.l‑‑Interim injunction‑‑Petitioner agitating grant of extra irrigation water supply to respondents‑‑High Court, holding that prima facie petitioner's share of water not having been reduced, refusal to grant injunction by two Courts below was not improper or illegal‑‑No inter ference found to be called for‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Khurshid Hassan Mir, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khan Imtiaz M.Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 13th November, 1983.
This petition is directed against the refusal to grant an interim injunction by the Courts below in the petitioner's suit. The petitioners who are recipients of canal water in Chak No.517/G.B, Toba Tek Singh, had by a writ petition agitated against sanction of extra water to the orchards of respondents 3 to 24, The petition was disposed of as the Departmental Officer conceded that the requirement of law had not been observed. A fresh order was accordingly passed by the Canal Officer on 4‑1‑1981 sanctioning the water‑supply to the respondents which, too, was challenged by another writ petition and when the same failed, the petitioners filed an Intra‑ Court Appeal That, too, was dismissed on 30‑9‑1981They then moved this Court through Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1010 of 1981, but the same also was dismissed on 8‑12‑1981. They started a third round by instituting a declaratory suit to challenge the same order of the Canal Officer, dated 4‑1‑1981. In the suit they applied for grant of an injunction. Having failed before the trial Court and the first appellate Court they came in revision before the High Court but the same too was dismissed in limine. The learned Judge of the High Court held that prima facie the petitioners' share of water not having been reduced, the refusal to grant injunction by the two Courts below was not improper or illegal.
2. After hearing learned counsel, we find no case for interference.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
S. Q. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer