2004 PLP 942 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD AKRAM and others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 942 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Farrukh Latif, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKRAM and others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 942 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 942 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Farrukh Latif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 942 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD AKRAM and others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Majeed Jahanian for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 115 & O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2-- Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of
Findings on question of law and fact recorded by Courts of competent jurisdiction, though erroneous, could not be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction as said jurisdiction was to be directed against irregular exercise, non- exercise or illegal assumption of jurisdiction
Trial Court had jurisdiction to decide stay application either way and Appellate Court was competent to decide appeal against order passed by Trial Court on stay application
Concurrent orders passed in the case being reasonable, same could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction in absence of any jurisdictional infirmity in the said order.
Judgment & Decree
3. The aforesaid orders of two Courts below are assailed in this civil revision on the grounds that-- (i) order passed by D.C.O. which was confirmed by S.C.O. were passed at the back of the petitioners and without notice to them; (ii) both the Courts below ignored an important aspect that disputed watercourse could not have been legally sanctioned in the land belonging .to the petitioners without their consent and without payment of compensation to them; (iii) finding of the learned Appellate Court that watercourse in question already existed, was dismantled and was simply restored is against facts; and (iv) both the Courts below failed to consider that in a previous suit, respondents Nos.4 to 6 had made a statement that they would not make the watercourse without consent of the petitioners.
4. Petitioners' counsel has been heard. Civil revision and its annexures perused.
5. It has been held by the Courts below that ex facie the orders were passed by the Canal Authorities after notice to the parties concerned; that no new watercourse was sanctioned in the land of the petitioners but an allegedly dismantled watercourse was restored; that the petitioners did not possess a prima facie case and that they were not likely to suffer irreparable loss.
6. Findings on question of law and fact recorded by Courts of competent jurisdiction, though erroneous cannot be interfered with in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction as said jurisdiction is directed against irregular exercise, -non-exercise or illegal assumption of jurisdiction.
7. Learned trial Court had the jurisdiction to decide the stay application either way and the learned Additional District Judge was competent to decide the appeal against the order passed by the trial Court on stay application.
8. No jurisdictional infirmity in the impugned orders could be pointed out which are reasonable. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-2284/L Revision dismissed.