2002 PLP 693 (MLD)
GHULAM RASOOL — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB — Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 693 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM RASOOL — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 693 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 693 (MLD)?
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: 2002 PLP 693 (MLD) (GHULAM RASOOL — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ms. Samina Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2 & S.115
Interim injunction, grant of-- Concurrent findings of facts by the Courts below
Dispute was with regard to restoration of watercourse in the fields of defendant
Plaintiff asserted- that the watercourse never existed and the Authorities had wrongly restored the same
Both the Courts below denied interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff
Assertion of the plaintiff could be looked into after recording of evidence
High Court in such cases would not interfere in the concurrent findings of fact
Plaintiff failed to point out any illegality, non-reading or misreading of evidence nor notified any jurisdictional defect
Balance of convenience was not in favour of the plaintiff and no irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff if the watercourse was allowed to run
Order passed by the Authorities prima facie, was valid and legal
High Court declined to grant interim injunction.
Judgment & Decree
Civil Revision No.777 of 2001, decided on 1st January, 2002.
O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2 & S.115
Interim injunction, grant of-- Concurrent findings of facts by the Courts below
Dispute was with regard to restoration of watercourse in the fields of defendant
Plaintiff asserted- that the watercourse never existed and the Authorities had wrongly restored the same
Both the Courts below denied interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff
Assertion of the plaintiff could be looked into after recording of evidence
High Court in such cases would not interfere in the concurrent findings of fact
Plaintiff failed to point out any illegality, non-reading or misreading of evidence nor notified any jurisdictional defect
Balance of convenience was not in favour of the plaintiff and no irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff if the watercourse was allowed to run
Order passed by the Authorities prima facie, was valid and legal
High Court declined to grant interim injunction. Ms. Samina Qureshi for Petitioner. The brief facts of the case are that Gulzar-respondent No.7 moved an application before Divisional Canal Officer-respondent No.3 for restoration of watercourse, which existed in Rectangle No. 322/4 Killa No. 19/4 and was demolished by the petitioner as it ran within his land. After due inquiry and hearing the parties concerned, respondent No.3 after inspection of the spot passed an order on 30-10-2000 directing the restoration of the said watercourse.
2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a declaratory suit challenging the order, dated 30-10-2000 passed by respondent No.3 on 31-10-2000. An application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. seeking ad interim injunction was also filed. The afore-referred application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Bahawalpur, vide order, dated 2-7-2001. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, vide order, dated 30-11-2001. Hence this revision.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record available on the file. The sole ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is-that no restoration of the water course could be ordered, as in fact no sanctioned watercourse existed and the petitioner for his convenience dug the disputed watercourse and after sometime demolished it. This aspect of the case would be looked into after recording of evidence. As far as the-present petition is concerned, there are concurrent findings of facts against the petitioner and in such cases this Court would not normally interfere. The learned counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any illegality, non-reading or misreading of evidence nor notify any jurisdictional defect. The balance of convenience is also not in favour of the petitioner and no irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioner, if the water-course is allowed to run. Prima facie the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is a valid and legal order, therefore, I do not find any merit in this petition. Consequently, the same is dismissed in limine. Q. M. H. /M. A. K./G-143/L Revision dismissed.