IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.

C.R. No._____________/2002

1. Muhammad Ibrahim S/o Fazal Din

2. Ghulam Muhammad S/o Nazar Muhammad
3. Bashir Ahmad S/o Raunaq Ali
4. Muhammad Amin S/o Ghulam Fareed
5. Haji Kala S/o Khan Muhammad
6. Allah Ditta S/o Ghulam Sarwar
All Arain by caste, R/o Chak No. 98/M, Tehsil & District
Lodhran.
……Plaintiffs/Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Province of Punjab through District Officer Rev. Multan.
2. Superintending Canal Officer, Mailsi Canal Circle, Bahawalpur
Road, Multan.
3. Division Canal Officer, Lodhran Canal Division, Abdali Road,
Multan.
4. Sub-Divisional Canal Officer, Sub-Division C/o D.C.O. Lodhran
Canal Division, Abdali Road, Multan.
5. Musarrat Jabeen—daughter
6. Robaina Shaheen—daughter
7. Izaz Ahmad
8. Aftab Ahmad sons of late Fakhruddin
9. Iftikhar Ahmad
10.Allah yar S/o Faiz Bakhsh
11.Mst. Nooor Khatoon—wife of Faiz Bakhsh
12.Mst. Ghulam Jannat—daughter Sial by caste
13.Mst. Ghulam Fatima—daughter
All residents of Chak No. 98/M, Tehsil & District Lodhran.
……Defendants/Respondents
 Civil Revision under section 115 C.P.C.
against the order dated 10.5.2002 by
which the appeal of the petitioner
against the order of trial court dated
21.9.2001 has been dismissed.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been
given for the purpose of their summons and citations.

2. That the petitioners are irrigators of outlet No. 22080/R Gagan

Hatta Distributory whereas the respondents are share-holders of
outlet No. 12720/1 of Jalapur Distributory.

3. That respondents No. 5 & 9 requested D.C.O. Lodhran Canal

Division that their land be shifted from their present outlet i.e.
12720/L to the outlet No. 22080/R (of petitioners). The
applications submitted by the aforesaid were forwarded to field
staff by the D.C.O. The field staff without associating the
petitioners with their preliminary inquiry sent one sided report to
S.D.C.O. (respondent No. 4) who also without application of
mind about the genuineness of the report submitted the same with
his recommendation to D.C.O. for further action (Copies of
applications and report of Zilledar & S.D.O. are Annexes “A, B,
C, D, E & F”).

4. That the D.C.O. while taking further action on the above-said

report, without any notice, without hearing the petitioners
without personal inquiry vide order dated 28.3.2000, shifted 25
acres land belonging to respondents No. 5 to 13 to the outlet of
petitioners (No. 22080/R) and sent the case to S.C.O. Mailsi
Canal Circle for confirmation (copy of the order of D.C.O. &
notice are Annexes “G & H”).
5. That one of the share-holders of outlet No. 22080/R without
taking into confidence the petitioners rest of the shareholders of
the said outlet and without their information filed an appeal
before the S.C.O. who also without notice without service &
hearing the petitioners and remaining share-holders of the above-
said outlet confirmed the order of D.C.O. dated 28.3.2000 vide
his order dated 20.7.2000. It is worth mentioning that the
appellants before the S.C.O. became collusive with the
respondents and all the proceedings were kept secret.
(Copies of appeal & order of S.C.O. are Annexes “I & J”).

6. That soon as the petitioners came to know about the impugned

orders of the Canal authorities, they filed a suit for declaration
and permanent injunction, along-with the suit an application for
grant of interim injunction restraining the respondents to
implement the impugned orders was also filed. The trial court
vide its order dated 21.9.2001 dismissed the said application. The
petitioners filed an appeal, which also met the same fate (rejected
vided order of Additional District Judge Multan on 10.5.2002),
hence, this revision petition. (Copies of plaint, written statement,
memo of appeal & orders dated 21.9.2001 & 10.5.2002 are
Annexes “K, L, M, N & O”).

7. That the order of the learned trial court dated 21.9.2001 and that
of the appeal court dated 10.5.2002 are illegal, void, against the
law and facts, hence, liable to be set aside interalia on the
following: -

GROUNDS

i) That both the courts below despite admitting the fact

that no notice was served upon the petitioners by the
Canal authorities and they have violated the mandatory
provisions of section 20 & rule 79 of the Canal Act, yet
refused to allow the application for grant of temporary
injunction which is against the law and principle of
natural justice.
ii) That both the courts below have failed to notice that the
Canal authorities have suomoto passed the impugned
orders without any application u/s 20 of the Canal &
Drainage Act from the respondents No. 11, 12 & 13
whereas no order can be passed by the Canal authorities
Suomoto.

iii) That while refusing to grant temporary injunction, the

court below did not take notice of the fact that under the
provision of section 20 of the Canal & Drainage Act, no
new water course can be sanctioned nor any existing
private Khal can be thrown open for use of other
persons except (i) on payment of compensation (ii)
possession of the land for the link water course has
been acquired under the provision of the said act,
whereas no such compensation has been paid nor Canal
authorities have given any consideration to this very
important aspect.

iv) That the learned trial court while determining the

question about the newly sanctioned water course based
its findings on wrong assumptions that the
petitioners/plaintiffs have failed to bring on record any
material which could show that the water course in
private one, whereas this fact is evident from the
impugned order of D.C.O. wherein a new water course
has been sanctioned in Khasra No.’s 37/5-6-15-16-25
from the land of the petitioners and the said Khal is
purely a private khal and not an approved water course.

v) That the impugned orders of Canal authorities have not

been implemented so far as is also reflected from the
order of appeal court, wherein it has been held that
“when the size of the outlet will be designed, keeping in
view the said 25 acres, then definitely there will be no
loss of any kind to the appellants or other share-
holders.”
 In view of the above findings, balance of
convenience is in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs not
in favour of the respondents/defendants as the orders of
Canal authorities are yet to be implemented. Even
otherwise, the impugned order of the D.C.O.
subsequently confirmed by the S.C.O. could not be
implemented in view of the findings of the D.C.O.
wherein he has left the sanction of the water courses for
future, the same is appended below.

From the above situation, it is evident that the orders of

the Canal authorities are non-speaking, defective &
suffer from legal infirmity and in no way can be acted
upon as such the petitioners have a good prima facie
case.

vi) It is worth mentioning that despite stay orders issued by

the trial court, respondents who are very influential &
powerful persons with the connivance of the
functionaries of Canal Department got their area
included in Warabandi of the outlet of the petitioners
and tried to get the same implemented with force, on
resistance from the petitioners’ side one of their
(petitioner’s) man Muhammad Tufail was murdered and
many persons were injured. A case under section
302/109, 148/149 P.P.C. has been registered against the
sons of respondent/defendant No. 10 (copy of F.I.R. is
Annex “P”).

vii) That both the learned courts below have erred while
giving their findings about irreparable loss. It has been
held by the trial court that respondents/defendants will
face irreparable loss if Canal supply remained
discontinued. Factually the Canal supply to the area of
the respondents No. is intact from their outlet No.
 12720/L as is also evident from the orders of Canal
authorities as such the petitioners who are petty owners
of land shall suffer due to decrease in timings of their
turns of water and not the respondents.

viii) That the petitioners fulfill all the three requirements i.e.
prima facie case, balance of convenience and
irreparable loss for grant of temporary injunction in
their favour.

In view the above-stated facts, it is humbly

prayed that impugned orders of the courts below
may kindly be set aside and application of the
petitioners for grant of temporary injunction may
very graciously be allowed in the interest of
justice.
Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court
deems necessary may also be granted.
HUMBLE PETITIONERS,

Dated: ___________

Through: -
Ziad Ahmad Mufti,
Advocate High Court,
6-Allama Iqbal Block,
District Courts, Multan.

CERTIFICATE: -
Certified as per instructions of the clients,
this is the first civil revision on the subject
matter. No such revision has earlier been
filed before this Hon’ble Court.
Advocate

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 C.R. No. ______________/2002

Muhammad Ibrahim etc. Vs. Province of Punjab etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Muhammad Ibrahim S/o Fazal Din, caste Arain, R/o
Chak No. 98/M, Tehsil & District Lodhran.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-mentioned Civil Revision are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
and nothing has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of June 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are
true & correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.

DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 In re: C.M. No. ____________/2002
In
C.R. No.____________/2002

Muhammad Ibrahim etc. Vs. Province of Punjab etc.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE

FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES.
=========================================

Respectfully Sheweth: -
That certified copies of Annexures “____________”
are not available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of
the same have been annexed with the petition, which are true
copies of original documents.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies
of documents.
PETITIONERS

Dated: __________

Through: -
Ziad Ahmad Mufti,
Advocate High Court,
6-Allama Iqbal Block,
District Courts, Multan.

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 In re: C.M. No. ____________/2002
In
C.R. No.____________/2002

Muhammad Ibrahim etc. Vs. Province of Punjab etc.

STAY APPLICATION.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Muhammad Ibrahim S/o Fazal Din, caste Arain, R/o
Chak No. 98/M, Tehsil & District Lodhran.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-mentioned application are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
and nothing has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of June 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are
true & correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 C.R. No.____________/2002

Muhammad Ibrahim etc. Vs. Province of Punjab etc.

INDEX

S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES

1 Opening Sheet
2 Urgent Form
3 Court Fee.
4 Civil Revision.
5 Affidavit
6 Copies of applications and report of A, B, C, D,
Zilledar & S.D.O. E&F
7 Copies of the order of D.C.O. & notice G&H
8 Copies of appeal & order of S.C.O. I&J
9 Copies of plaint, written statement, K, L, M, N
memo of appeal & orders dated
&O
21.9.2001 & 10.5.2002
10 Copy of F.I.R. P
11 Dispensation Application.
12 Affidavit.
13 Stay application.
14 Affidavit.
15 Vakalatnama

PETITIONERS
Dated: ________
Through: -
Ziad Ahmad Mufti,
Advocate High Court,
6-Allama Iqbal Block,
District Courts, Multan.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
 In re: C.M. No. ____________/2002
In
C.R. No.____________/2002

Muhammad Ibrahim etc. Vs. Province of Punjab etc.

Application U/s 151 C.P.C. for the suspension of order.

Respectfully Sheweth: -

1. That the above-titled civil revision is being filed before this

Hon’ble Court, the contents of which may be considered as part
& parcel of this application.

2. That the applicants/petitioners have a good prima facie case.

3. That the respondents are bent upon to implement the impugned

orders of the D.C.O. dated 28.3.2000 and orders of the S.C.O.
dated 20.7.2000, in case they succeed in their evil designs, the
applicants/petitioners will have to suffer an irreparable loss.

4. That balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicants.

5. Affidavit is attached.

It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the

operation of the above-said impugned orders dated
28.3.2002 and 20.7.2000 may very graciously be
suspended till the final disposal of the case.

Humble Applicants,

Dated: ________
Through: -
Ziad Ahmad Mufti,
Advocate High Court,
6-Allama Iqbal Block,
District Courts, Multan.