1995 PLP 999 (MLD)

(b) Administration of justice‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Duty of Court‑‑‑People have developed tendency of not permitting different Departments of the Government and public functionaries to work smoothly in their respective spheres, and even such facts and orders which manifestly were not open to exception, were more often than not, impugned by filing civil suits and Constitutional petitions and if somehow a person or a party has his sway, and gets a stay order, public interests, as also rights of other people, are put to serious jeopardy and wrong done becomes irremediable‑‑‑Courts should, therefore, exercise absolute care and complete vigilance in dealing with such matters, particularly when interim relief in certain form was sought‑‑‑Litigation minded people have become crafty in exploiting the process of Court for perpetration of fraud, for perpetuation of wrong and for incidence of injustice, rather than for securing justice or advancement of ends of equity and fair play from Courts‑‑‑Courts should endeavour to jealously watch public interest and zealously protect interests of those not fortunate enough to get competent legal advice and assistance. Hasan Ahmad Kanwar for Petitioners. Ch. M. Yaqoob Sabir for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th August, 1994. Certain Warabandi order passed by the Canal Department on 3‑1‑1988 was set aside on 6‑3‑1990 by Mr. Muhammad Sharif Janjua, Civil Judge, Kasur, in a civil suit filed by Khuda Bakhsh, etc. against Province of the Punjab and the Irrigation Authorities. Ghulam Rasool, etc., as many as 38 persons, submitted an application on 5‑7‑1992, under section 12(2), C.P.C. for rescission of the decree dated 6‑3‑1990, pleading that they had intentionally been kept out of the picture, although they were necessary party to the suit, as their irrigation rights were adversely affected by the Civil Court's decree, and in any case they being shareholders in the out‑let in question had a right to be heard. In‑ the proceedings of the aforesaid application, Ghulam Rasool, etc. submitted an application under Order 26, Rule 9, C.P.C. for appointment of a local commission. Another application was made for suspension of the operation of the Civil Court's decree, during pendency of the petition under section 12(2), C.P.C. Both these miscellaneous applications were rejected by the trial Judge on 31‑10‑1993 and 5‑1‑1994 respectively. These orders were also upheld in appeal by Rana Zahid Mahmood, Additional District Judge, Kasur, on 2‑3‑1994, and have been assailed by Ghulam Rasool, etc. through the present revision petition.

2. An important development had taken place in the course of the proceedings. S.D.O. of the Canal Department concerned had made a statement on 27‑3‑1993 that the Civil Court's decree dated 6‑3‑1990 had been implemented. Correctness of this statement was questioned by these people, but the Court did not have before it any material persuading it to believe that the decree having been delivered as back as on 6‑3‑1990 still remained to be acted upon. If the S.D.O. had told a lie, the petitioners could approach the higher officers in the same hierarchy and they would certainly have made a probe and taken the S.D.O. to task for his having allegedly made a wrong statement in a Court of law. Learned Lower Courts are of the view that what the petitioners may establish by leading evidence may not necessarily be elicited on spot‑inspection by a local Commissioner. Similarly there was no point in staying the process and suspending the implementation of the Civil Court, decree dated 6‑3‑1990, when the same has already been acted upon and the Canal Department has taken all the necessary steps in that behalf.

3. According 19 the private respondents, who are also supported by the canal people, the petitioners are petty land‑owners and they generally `sell' the canal water to others, as they have been getting it in excess of their actual requirements; and since their business enterprise has received a jolt by the decision of the Civil Court, enforced by the Canal Department, they have decided not to put up with the latest position and not to accept the change, which has been given effect to, in the larger interests of all the shareholders of the out‑let in question.

4. The matter in issue is primarily the subject of the Authorities of the Canal Department, who are experts in their own field. People, however, have developed the tendency of not permitting different Departments of the Government and the public functionaries to work smoothly in their respective spheres, and even such acts and orders which manifestly are not open exception, are more often than not impugned by filing civil suits and writ petitions, and if some how a clever person or a party has his sway, and gets a stay order, public interests, as also rights of the other people, are put to serious jeopardy and the wrong done becomes irremediable. Courts should, therefore, exercise absolute care and complete vigilance in dealing with such matters, particularly when interim relief in certain form is sought. Litigation‑minded people have become crafty in exploiting the process of the Court for perpetration of fraud, for perpetuation of wrong, and for incidence of injustice, rather than for securing justice or advancement of ends of equity and fair‑play from the Courts. All this is highly unfortunate indeed, but no one can deny that this sad state of affairs is becoming rampant with increased frequency in count‑less cases daily. I, for one, therefore, have always endeavoured to jealously watch the public interest and to zealously protect interest of those not fortunate enough to get competent legal advice and assistance.

5. All said and done, the civil revision having no merit is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs of litigation. AA./G‑257/L Revision declined.