1991 PLP 1466 (SCMR)
Haji MURAD ALI and others — Petitioners Versus THE POLITICAL AGENT, CHAGAI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1466 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Ajmal Mian, JJ |
| Parties | Haji MURAD ALI and others — Petitioners Versus THE POLITICAL AGENT, CHAGAI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1466 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1466 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Ajmal Mian, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1466 (SCMR) (Haji MURAD ALI and others — Petitioners Versus THE POLITICAL AGENT, CHAGAI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Aslam Chishti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and K.N. Kohli, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- M.S. Rakhshani, A.A.-G. for Respondents Nos.1 and 3.
- SA.M. Quadri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos.4 to 6.
- Date of hearing: 26th August, 1990.
- Muhammad Aslam Chishti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and K.N. Kohli, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- M.S. Rakhshani, A.A.‑G. for Respondents Nos.1 and 3.
- SA.M. Quadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.4 to 6.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order, dated 12-7-1990 of the Balochistan High Court, Quetta, in Civil Revision No.111 of 1990).
O. XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)-- Respondents submitted that they neither had used any criminal force against petitioners to slop supply of water to them nor they intended to do so-- Respondents also made a statement that any action to stop supply of water would be taken by them against petitioners only through official agencies
In view of such statement on the part of respondents, petitioners did not press petition-- Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the Judgment, dated 12‑7‑1990 passed by the High Court.
2. The dispute relates to a stream of water known as Manda‑e‑Khaiser. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration and injunction alleging therein that the private respondents approached the Collector for correction of entries concerning the source of irrigating the petitioners' land from the said stream of water. It was further alleged that the private respondents have attempted to dispossess the petitioners with the intention of depriving them from using the water from the said stream. Alongwith the suit, an application for interim injunction was filed. The suit was contested by the respondents. The claim of the petitioners was disputed. It was alleged that water for the purpose of irrigation was being strictly utilised by the petitioners. The stream Manda‑e‑Khaiser is a part of Joi Nushki and the three tribes have exclusive right to use it. The application for interim injunction was also contested. The learned Civil Judge granted interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in their possession over tile land and water.
3. This order was challenged in appeal before the District Judge which was disposed of by the learned Additional .District Judge, who accepted the appeal and vacated [lie order of the trial Court. The petitioners then challenged the order of the Additional District Judge in a Civil Revision which was dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to tile facts of the case. The admitted position, according to the learned counsel, is that the petitioners arc upper riparians. The unofficial respondents are down below at a distance of sixteen miles from the land of the petitioners. It cannot, therefore, appeal to reason that the respondents are interfering in the flow of water.
5. The learned counsel then submitted that the respondents may by force stop the supply of water by raising some construction at the place from where the petitioners are taking water. There is no material to substantiate this contention. The respondents had approached the authorities for correction of entries concerning source of the irrigating land from the above‑mentioned stream.
6. Learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that they have not us9d any criminal force against the petitioners and there is also none on the record. The learned counsel for the respondents made a statement that any action to stop the supply of water would be taken by them through the official agencies. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in view of such statement, does not press this petition. Even otherwise, the order is of tentative nature. The parties will have to go to the trial and establish their case before the Court. This Court does not ordinarily interfere in such type of interlocutory orders.
7. This petition has no force. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. H.B.T./M‑1431/S Petition dismissed.