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 Revision No. 1464 of 1985, decided on 25th. May, 1986.
‑‑‑5. 68‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115 and O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2‑‑Temporary injunction against implementation of new Warabandi refused by Courts below‑‑Plea of reduction of irrigation time at expense of plaintiff and undue benefit thereof to defendant, held, was established by comparison of previous and current Warabandis‑‑Besides amendment in Warabandi directing plaintiff and some others to take their turn of water alternately being irrational, was apt to prove source of trouble for concerned parties ‑No reasons for amendment of Warabandi which would prejudice plaintiff having beers given by Canal authorities, plaintiffs case would warrant issuance of temporary injunction and same was, granted in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of High Court till decision bf, suit pending in Trial Court.
Chaudhry Muhammad Aslam Sandhy for Petitioner.
Niaz Muhammad Khan Lodhi for Respondent No.1.
Nemo for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
Date of hearing: 25th May 1986.
Jalal Din, petitioner, brought suit to challenge the validity of the order passed by the Sub‑Divisional Canal Officer, Sheikhupura, on the 11th. November, 1984, which was confirmed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Sheikhupura, on the 28th January, 1985, amending the Warabandi which regulated irrigation of his land situate in the area of village Wurn Dera Marks, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura, from outlet No. 26980‑R. His applicatioh for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from implementing new Warabandi was rejected by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura. His appeal against the order of the learned trial Court was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura. Feeling aggrieved he has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.1, I have gone through the previous and the current Warabandis. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was only the petitioner who had been singled out in matter o reduction of irrigation time and at his expense undue benefit had been given to respondent No.1 whose irrigation time has been increased without reason is not without force. Again the amendment in the Warabandi directing the petitioner as also two others to take their turns of water alternately besides being somewhat irrational is apt t be prove a source of trouble for all the concerned parties. No reason for the amendment, which works to the prejudice of the petitioner, ha been given by the canal authorities. In such circumstances the petitioner's case warranted issuance of temporary injunction. The petitioner is accepted, the impugned orders of the learned Courts below are sell aside and it is directed that the respondents will not implement the amended Warabandi till the decision of the suit.
3. The learned counsel for the contesting parties request for issuance of instructions to the learned trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura, seized with the trial of the suit, is directed to give the suit priority over other cases, decide it within six months and report compliance to this Court.
A.A. Revision accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer