1998 PLP 63 (MLD)

Roohul Amin for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th April, 1996. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18-4-1995 of the learned Additional District Judge, Kohat, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kohat dated 26-4-1994 was maintained, whereby the application of the petitioner for temporary injunction was dismissed.

2. The plaintiff-petitioner (hereinafter called the petitioner) instituted a suit against the defendant-respondent (hereinafter called the respondent) for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that the respondent has got no right to raise construction in the shamilat till partition is affected and that he should be restrained from making any construction thereupon which would cause diversion of the water flow of 'algadda' and damage petitioner's land. In the alternative the petitioner also prayed for possession of the suit land through demolition of construction.

3. The petitioner also filed an application alongwith the plaint for issuance of temporary injunction restraining the respondent from making construction in the suit Khasra Nos.8316 and 8317 till the decision of the suit.

4. The respondent contested the suit as well as the application. On the application for temporary injunction arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were heard and it was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 26-4-1994. Against this order an appeal was preferred before the District Judge, Kohat which came up for hearing before Additional District Judge, Kohat who dismissed the same vide his order dated 8-4-1945. Hence the petitioner has come up to this Court against the said interlocutory order by filing the present revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the intended construction by the respondent would cause diversion in the flow of water of ' algaddah' which in turn would cause his land bearing Khasra numbers 8158, 8157/1 and 8199 to become barren. He stated that the petitioner in an earlier suit against the respondent has been granted temporary injunction with regard to Khasra No.8315 restraining him to raise any construction on it, therefore, he should also be restrained from making construction in Khasra Nos.8316 and 8317.

6. The contention has no force. Learned counsel failed to make out a case for grant of temporary injunction as the existence of prima facie case, irreparable damage or balance of convenience in his favour could not be established. The grant of temporary injunction in one case does not ipso facto entitle him to the grant of injunction in another case, as each case has to be assessed and decided according to its own facts. Both the learned courts below have given detailed well-founded reasons for rejecting the application for temporary injunction which do not call for interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, this is revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed, alongwith Civil Miscellaneous No.302 of 1995. Costs shall follow the event. A.A./2126/P Revision Dismissed.