1988 PLP 785 (MLD)
NIAZ AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MURTAZA and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 785 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zafarullah, J |
| Parties | NIAZ AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MURTAZA and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 785 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 785 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Zafarullah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 785 (MLD) (NIAZ AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MURTAZA and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ayaz Muhammad Khan for Petitioner.
- Sardar Tariq Sher Khan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th May, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2‑‑Grant of temporary injunction‑‑Appellate Court, granting temporary injunction restraining Canal Authorities from denying use of water to plaintiffs on ground that petitioners were not served in proceedings before Canal Authorities‑‑Record of Canal Authorities showing that all co sharers were served with notice‑‑Appellate Court, Held, did not exercise its jurisdiction properly in granting temporary injunction.
Judgment & Decree
The respondents instituted a suit against the order of the Canal Authorities regarding the supply of water. The suit is pending but their application for interim injunction was rejected by the trial Court on 10‑10‑1982. An appeal was preferred against that order on 19‑10‑1982 and the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal allowed the appeal and granted a temporary injunction vide his order dated 23‑2‑1983. The present petition is directed against the order of the appellate Court.
2. The learned Additional District Judge was of the view that the plaintiffs were not served in the proceedings before the Canal Authorities. For this, there was no material before the Court except for the fact that the present petitioners alone appeared before the Canal Authorities in response to the notice. As regards the notice and its service the learned Additional District Judge observed that according to the record of the Canal Authorities a notice was issued on 30‑5‑1982 for 15‑6‑1982 and that the orders of 15‑6‑1982 show that all the ca sharers had been served. In presence of this record the observation of the learned Additional District Judge that the plaintiffs were not served is against record. 1t was therefore, not a proper exercise of jurisdiction and the order of 23‑2‑1983 is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
3. It may also be observed that the order of the Canal Authorities was implemented on 17‑10‑1982 while the appeal was filed on 19‑10‑1982. The effect of the impugned orders is to disturb the status quo which in any case, was not proper.
4. In view of the above consideration, this revision petition allowed and the orders of the Additional District Judge of 23‑2‑1983 are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. M.AX/2598/L Petition allowed.