IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.

C.R. No._____________/2002

1. Muhammad Hussain S/o Sultan Mehmood

2. Muhammad Ramzan S/o Mirdad
Hiraj by caste, R/o Village Ghobind Garh, Tehsil Kabirwala,
District Khanewal.
……..Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Allah Yar S/o Shamir Khan, caste Sial Hiraj, R/o Village Gobind
Garh, Tehsil Kabirwala, District Khanewal.
……Respondent

Civil Revision Under Section 115 C.P.C.

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 petitioners are owners of agricultural land in village Gobind

Garh for which canal water is supplied form outlet No. 8200/R,
Gobind Garh, minor of Multan Canals Division. (Copy of record
of rights is Annex “A”).

3. That to remove bends in the water course at its starting point

adversely affecting the irrigation of the petitioners and other
share-holders of the said outlet coupled with interference by the
irrigators of adjoining outlet who had constructed their residences
 just by the side of the water-course and usually fill it with waste
and rubbish which hindered the flow of water in it, the petitioners
filed an application to D.C.O. Multan Canal Division stating the
aforesaid difficulties and requested to shift their outlet No.
8200/R to R.D. No. 8245/R, just in front of the main running
water-course which irrigates the land of all the share-holders of
the said outlet. (Copies of application and outlet map are
Annexes “B & C”).

4. That the D.C.O. after detailed inquiry and observance of due

procedure as laid down in Section 20 of the Canal & Drainage
Act, issue service of notice and hearing the irrigators of the
outlet, keeping in view the field survey reports vide order dated
26.10.2000 shifted the said outlet from its present place i.e.
8200/R to 8245/R in the best interest of the irrigation and this
order was subject to confirmation by the Superintending Canal
Officer, Haveli Canal Circle, Multan. (Copies of report by
Zilladar, S.D.O., Command Statement, Notice and order of
D.C.O. dated 26.10.2000 are Annexes “D, E, F, G & H”).

5. That the respondent No. 1 filed an appeal/objection petition

against the said order of the D.C.O. before the S.C.O. The S.C.O.
after hearing the parties vide his order dated 30.1.2001 rejected
the appeal with the following observation.

i) That the head of outlet is against the Chak Bandi

(outside the boundary) of the impugned outlet which is
against the general practice of irrigation.

ii) That the bendsd in water-course effects the normal flow

of supply casing loss to irrigation.

iii) That in head reach some houses were constructed just

adjacent the head of the outlet as also confirmed by the
contestants and the residents apprehend that there is
every likelihood of falling their children in the running
 water-course causing loss to them. The S.C.O.
confirmed the order of the D.C.O. with the modification
that the outlet will be shifted to R.D: 8240/R instead of
8245/R. This order was passed in the presence of
respondent No. 1 on his above-referred appeal. (Copy
of the order of S.C.O. dated 30.1.2001 Annex “I”).

6. That the respondent No. 1 instituted a civil suit challenging the

validity of above-said orders of D.C.O. & S.C.O. by which outlet
was shifted from 8200/R to 8240/R. Alongwith the suit, an
application under order 39, rules 1, 2 and section 151 C.P.C. was
also submitted. The learned trial court after hearing the parties
vide its order dated 13.2.20002 dismissed the stay application.
(Copy of plaint, stay application and order dated 13.2.2002 are
Annexes “J, K & L”).

7. That being aggrieved from the above said order of civil court, the
respondent No. 1 filed an appeal to District Judge, Khanewal,
which was entrusted to the court of Khawaja Muhammad Zafar
Iqbal Additional District Judge, Khanewal, who vide his order
dated 22.3.2002 accepted the appeal setting aside the order of
trial court and application for grant of temporary injunction was
allowed, hence, this revision petition. (Copies of Memo of appeal
& order dated 22.3.2002 are attached as Annexes “M & N”).

GROUNDS

i) That the impugned order is against law, justice,

arbitrary, improper and untenable.

ii) That learned court below while deciding appeal, failed

to observe that the orders passed by the Canal
authorities fulfill all the requirements of section 20 of
the Canal & Drainage Act and the appellant actively
participated the proceedings throughout and no
illegality has been committed.
iii) That the learned appeal court below has based its
decision solely on a previous order dated 30.9.98 of the
civil court passed in civil suit titled “Shamir Vs.
Ghulam Rasool etc.” filed entirely on a different cause
of action and order dated 18.4.2000 passed in appeal by
the learned A.D.J. Khanewal, specifically relying upon
the statement by Sub-Engineer of the Irrigation
Department before the Civil Court on 22.9.98 in the
above-referred suit, which has no concern with the
instant case. The facts of that case are quite different
from the case in hand. (Copies of plaint, order, memo of
appeal, order and statement of Sub-Engineer are
attached as Annexes “O, P, Q, R & S”).

iv) That the learned appeal court while referring the

previous decision altogether ignored the contention of
Ghulam Rasool plaintiff/respondent (who was not the
irrigators of impugned outlet) in those cases. His
request to shift the outlet from its present place was
owing to the reason that the same was wrongly fixed at
its present place instead of Sanctioned site which falls
outside the boundary of the said outlet. He wanted its
shifting due to personal reasons i.e. the water courts
leading from the impugned outlet is just adjacent to his
residence and to avoid any mishap of falling his
children into water-course and not due to irrigation
problem, as he was not the irrigator of impugned outlet.

v) That the learned appeal court below has not correctly

interpreted the orders passed in civil suit titled “Shamir
Vs. Ghulam Rasool” and in appeal of Ghulam Rasool.
As a matter of fact, the case was remanded to Canal
authorities for fresh hearing after issuing notice to all
the share-holders of impugned outlet. The Canal
authorities turned down the request of said Ghulam
Rasool on the ground that he not being a share-
 holder/irrigator of impugned outlet was not competent
to file application for its shifting. The issue involved in
that order dated 30.9.98 of the civil court and
subsequent order of 18.4.2000 in appeal was that
whether the outlet was fixed at its sanction place i.e.
8200/R or at 8240/R as is also evident form the
application of the said Ghulam Rasool before the Canal
authorities. (Copy of application is Annex “J”).

vi) That in view of the difficulties faced by the present

petitioners to irrigate their land due to abrupt turns in
the very beginning of water course, the petitioner
approached the Canal authorities for its solution who
after detailed inquiry, inspection of site and
examination of relevant record, ordered to shift the
impugned outlet from its present place i.e. RD 8200/R
to 8240/R in the best interest of irrigation.

vii) That the learned appeal court has failed to appreciate

that the impugned shifting of outlet will result in better
irrigation, the bend in water course will be removed and
it will be fixed just in front of the straight water-course
irrigating all the land within the boundary of the outlet,
rather it has taken upon itself the technical duty of
Canal officer and declared the orders of the Canal
authorities not convincing whereas highest courts of the
country have declared that civil courts are not Canal
officers. The Canal officers are the best judges of their
own field.

viii) That the learned trial court below has passed the
impugned order in a slipshod manner without
examining the record of the case.

ix) That in view of the above submissions, the petitioners

have a good prima facie and arguable case and all the
 three ingredients essential for grant of temporary
injunction are missing in the instant case, which the
learned appeal court below failed to appreciate and also
ignored the points raised by the petitioners, hence, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this

revision petition may very graciously be
accepted, impugned order of the learned appeal
court below dated 22.3.2002 be set aside and
order of the trial court dated 13.2.2002 be
restored.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble court

deems fit, may please be awarded.

HUMBLE PETITIONERS,

Dated: ___________

Through: -
Ziad Ahmad Mufti,
Advocate High Court,
6-Allama Iqbal Block,
District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 21219

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

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 C.R. No. ______________/2002

Muhammad Hussain etc. Vs. Allah Yar etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Muhammad Hussain S/o Sultan Mehmood, Hiraj by
caste, R/o Village Ghobind Garh, Tehsil Kabirwala,
District Khanewal.

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 April 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 Hussain etc. Vs. Allah Yar 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.
APPLICANTS

Dated: __________

Through: -
Ziad Ahmad Mufti,
Advocate High Court,
6-Allama Iqbal Block,
District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 21219

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

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

Muhammad Hussain etc. Vs. Allah Yar etc.

STAY APPLICATION.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Muhammad Hussain S/o Sultan Mehmood, Hiraj by
caste, R/o Village Ghobind Garh, Tehsil Kabirwala,
District Khanewal.

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 April 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 Hussain etc. Vs. Allah Yar etc.

INDEX
S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES
1 Urgent Form
2 Court fee.
3 Civil Revision.
4 Affidavit.
5 Copy of record of rights. A
6 Copies of application and outlet map. B&C
Copies of report by Zilladar, S.D.O., D, E, F, G &
Command statement, notice & order. H
Copy of order of S.C.O. dated 30.1.01 I
7 Copies of plaint, stay application and J, K & L
order dated 13.2.2002.
8 Copies of memo of appeal & order M & N
dated 22.3.2002.
9 Copies of plaint, order, memo of O, P, Q, R &
appeal, order and statement of Sub- S
Engineer.
10 Dispensation Application.
11 Affidavit.
12 Stay Application.
Affidavit.
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 Hussain etc. Vs. Allah Yar etc.

APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION OF ORDER.

The applicants respectfully submit as under: -

1. That the above captioned civil revision has been filed before this
August Court, the contents of which should be considered as part
of this application.

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

3. That the balance of convenience lies with the applicants.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that during

the pendency of the writ petition, operation of the
impugned order dated 22.3.2002 may very graciously
be suspended.
Humble Applicant
Dated: __________

Through: -
Ziad Ahmad Mufti,
Advocate High Court,
6-Allama Iqbal Block,
District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 21219