1988 PLP 486 (CLC)

Messrs AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT LTD.‑‑Respondent Civil Revision No. 175 of 1986, decided on 5th February, 1987. ‑‑‑S. 115‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.55‑‑Mandatory injunction, suit for‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Concurrent judgments of two Courts below based on evidence on record were not suffering from any misreading of evidence or perverse appreciation of evidence by Courts below‑‑Petitioner being unable to point out any error of jurisdictional character, such concurrent judgments, held, could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of revisio~‑aljurisdiction. Farooq Hameed Naik for Applicant. This revision application is directed against the two concurrent judgments of Courts below. The applicant had instituted a suit for mandatory injunction against the respondent seeking a direction from the Court for restoration of the water connection in Farm No. 33 which was allegedly provided in the premises constructed on that Farm for residential purpose. Both the Courts below on the basis of the evidence recorded in the case reached the conclusion that the applicant /plaintiff failed to establish that any separate connection for supply of water for residential purpose was provided to the applicant/ plaintiff in respect of Farm No.

33. It was also found by the Courts below that the connection which was taken by the applicant for residential purpose was not authorised. On these conclusions the suit instituted by the applicant /plaintiff was dismissed by the Court. Farooq Hameed Naik, Advocate for the applicant contends that the water connection of Farm No. 33 for residential purpose was in addition to the water connection already available on that Farm for the Farming purpose. This case was heard by me partly on 3‑2‑1987 when the learned counsel took time to produce the bill td support his contention. Today the learned counsel has produced before me a letter written by respondent to the applicant on 6th November, 1972 which according to the learned counsel supported his contention that there was additional water connection provided on Farm No.

33. The letter has been kept on record. I have gone through the letter dated 6th November, 1972 produced by the learned counsel in Court today and I find that this letter does not in any way improve the case of the applicant. On the contrary it goes to support the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below that on the above noted three Farms namely Farms Nos. 22, 33 and 34, five water connections were provided. No doubt in respect of Farm No. 33 there were two connections for 3" diameter and 11" diameter but these connections have not been disturbed in any manner as is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent and it was also so found by the Courts below that five connections provided on the three farms of the petitioner are not subject‑matter of controversy in the present suit. The learned counsel is unable to point out either any misreading of evidence or perverse appreciation of evidence by the Courts below. There appears to be no other error in the judgment of the Courts below of any jurisdictional character so as to call for interference with the judgment, in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The revision application is accordingly dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. M. B. A . /M‑348/K Revision petition dismissed.