1994 PLP 2302 (CLC)
Ch. MUHAMMAD BASHIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DIVISIONAL CANAL OFFICER and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 2302 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Gul Zarin Kiani, J |
| Parties | Ch. MUHAMMAD BASHIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DIVISIONAL CANAL OFFICER and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 2302 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 2302 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Gul Zarin Kiani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 2302 (CLC) (Ch. MUHAMMAD BASHIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DIVISIONAL CANAL OFFICER and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muzammal Khan for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Rafiq Khan assisted by C.A. Rehman for Respondent No.3:
- Date of hearing: 8th February, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O.VII, R. 11‑‑‑Plaint showing triable issues would not deserve summary rejection ‑‑‑Unceremonial burial of such plaint without formal trial of points taken therein would not be warranted. Abdul Qayum and another v. Niaz Muhammad and another 1992 SCMR 613 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O.VII, R. 11 & S. 115‑‑‑Rejection of plaint‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Rejection of plaint eing unwarranted, order rejecting the same was set aside and case was emanded to Trial Court for decision on merits. Abdul Rashid Ziladar on behalf of Respondent No. 1.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O.VII, R. 11 & S. 115‑‑‑Rejection of plaint‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Rejection of plaint eing unwarranted, order rejecting the same was set aside and case was emanded to Trial Court for decision on merits. Ch. Muzammal Khan for Petitioner. Abdul Rashid Ziladar on behalf of Respondent No.
1. Muhammad Rafiq Khan assisted by C.A. Rehman for Respondent No.3: Date of hearing: 8th February, 1993. Plaint in the suit for annulment of an order dated 30‑7‑1984 by a Divisional Canal Officer, for restoration of a dismantled Khal, passed under section 68‑A of Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, and for perpetual injunction for stopping its implementation was rejected, under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil P.C. Its decision was affirmed in appeal on similar grounds. A revision filed in this Court to challenge the correctness of these decisions was admitted to hearing, on 2‑10‑1985. The trial Court took the view that the impugned order was in the nature of interim arrangement and was to be followed by a final order. Therefore, it could not be reviewed by the Civil Court and a suit for setting aside of it did not lie. Appellate Court agreed with it. Section 68‑A ibid is interwoven with section 68 of the Canal and Drainage Act. In default of pending dispute under section 68, exercise of jurisdiction by a Canal Authority under section 68‑A of the Act was not warranted. This view has a clear support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Abdul Qayum and another v. Niaz Muhammad and another (1992 SCMR 613). Therefore, the plaint did not deserve its summary rejection on the grounds enumerated in the impugned orders. In my view, plaint disclosed triable issues and its unceremonious burial without a formal trial of the points taken in it was unwarranted. Upon this view of the matter, civil revision is allowed. Impugned judgments and decrees of lower Court are set aside for formal trial of the civil suit on merits in accordance with law by the trial Court. Needless to observe that the application for interim relief shall also be decided afresh on its merits. There shall be no order as to costs in this Court. Parties shall appear before the trial Court on 27‑2‑1993. The trial shall be finalized within six months. Until a different order was made by the trial Court on the application for temporary injunction, quo shall prevail. A.A./M/1716/L Revision accepted.