2008 PLP 1591 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ and another — Petitioners Versus NASAR AHMAD and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1591 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ and another — Petitioners Versus NASAR AHMAD and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Canal and Drainage Act (VIII of 1873) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1591 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Canal and Drainage Act (VIII of 1873) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1591 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1591 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ and another — Petitioners Versus NASAR AHMAD and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Javed Akhtar Wains for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 68--Civil' Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1, 2
Application for grant of temporary injunction
Plaintiffs in their suit had questioned orders passed by Sub-Divisional and Divisional Canal Officers on the ground that said orders had deprived the plaintiffs of the right of nakal
Plaintiffs had also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from implementing said orders
Suit and application had concurrently been dismissed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court
Record had shown that the Wara (turn) as also the irrigation time remained intact
Fresh Waras had been prepared in order to enable the defendants to irrigate their land located in different squares from the same source
Prima facie no prejudice had been caused to the plaintiffs by the impugned orders
Petitions were dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.
On 13-9-2003 the petitioners filed a suit against the respondents. In the plaint, order dated 30-6-2003 passed by respondent No.3 and 8-9-2003 passed by respondent No.4 (in appeal) were questioned on the ground that the said orders deprived the petitioner of the right of Nakal. Along with the suit an application was filed for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from implementing the said orders. The suit as well as the application was contested by the respondents Nos.1 and
2. Vide order dated 12-12-2003 the learned trial Court dismissed the said application. A first appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Vehari on 2-10-2004.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends with reference to the copy of Warabandi and the Chak Plan that the orders passed by the Canal Officers deprived his client of the right of Nakal.
3. I have examined the copies of the records, with the assistance of the learned counsel. Now I find that the Wara (turn) as also the irrigation time remains intact. The fresh Waras have been prepared in order to enable the respondents to irrigate their land located in different squares from the same source. To my mind, prima facie no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by the said orders. The civil revision is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-276/L Petition dismissed.