1979 PLP 275 (SCMR)

KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑‑Ahmad Yar and 24 others (hereinafter called the plaintiffs) filed a suit against (i) Punjab Province, (ii) Divisional Canal Officer and (iii) Muhammad son of Bahawal for self and as a re presentative of shareholders of outlet R. D. 52481/R, Rajbah Jandokee, Tube‑Well No. 181, HFD/Tehsil Hafizabad, District Gujranwala (hereinafter called as defendants) challenging an order dated 30‑10‑1975 of defendant No. 2 whereby he transferred certain land of defendant No. 3 from their respective previous chakbandi in Tube‑Well No. 181/HFD to chakbandi of Tube‑Well No. 202/HFD and Tube‑Well No. 185/HFD as detailed in the plaint. In that suit the plaintiffs filed an application claiming a temporary injunction to restrain the operation of the impugned order till the decision of the suit. The application was accepted by the learned Civil Judge who by means of his order dated 20‑1‑1976 granted the temporary injunction prayed for.

2. The defendants filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge who by means of his order dated 19‑4‑1977 set aside the order of the learned Civil Judge and held that it was not a fit case warranting issuance of any temporary injunction.

3. The plaintiffs filed a Civil Revision No. 389/1977 but without any success as the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court by means of his judgment and order dated 7‑11‑1978. The plaintiffs have come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.

4. The case was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners) at some length before us, but it may be stated that he was unable to point out as to what irreparable loss his clients would suffer if the operation, of the order of the Divisional Canal Officer was not stayed. We confronted him with this aspect of the matter but he could find nothing from the record to place any concrete position before us. For instance we asked him as to how much water the plaintiffs were receiving and from which outlet earlier and how much water they will be receiving under the new arrangement and with what difference, and what effect the impugned order had on their rights, if any and how. That the supply of water of the petitioners has not been adversely affected in any manner is rather clear from first paragraph of their application under Order V, rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules for claiming of a temporary injunction wherein they have pleaded that "the petitioners are having an existing source of water supply to their lands through which land owners represented by respondent No. 3 are also being permitted the supply of water for their lands". This shows that apart from the fact that the respondents have also been allowed to take water from the outlet in dispute otherwise the petitioners have not been adversely affected. In that state of affairs there exists no ground to interfere with the concurrent finding of the High Court and the Additional District Judge that this was not a fit case for grant of any temporary injunction for restraining the implementation of the order of the Divisional Canal Officer. The petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.