IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.

REVISION PETITION No._______/2002

Abdul Haq S/o Rehmat Ali, caste Jat Sindhu, R/o Chak No. 9/MR,
Tehsil & District Multan.
…….Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Province of Punjab through District Officer Revenue, Multan.
2. Deputy Collector, Multan Canal Division/S.D.C.O. Abdali Road,
Multan.
3. Division Canal Officer, Multan Canal Division Abdali Road,
Multan.
4. Mushtaq Ahmad S/o Muhammad Ramzan, caste Arain.

5. Munir Ahmad Ghulam Mustafa

6. Bashir Ahmad sons caste Arain, R/o Chak No.
7. Muhammad Aslam 9/MR, Tehsil & District
8. Muhammad Amin Multan.
……Respondents

REVISION PETITION against the judgment & decree

of the Civil Judge 1st Class, Multan dated
26.11.2001 and against the order passed by
the Additional District Judge, Multan dated
9.2.2002 by which the suit of the petitioner
and his subsequent appeal were dismissed
by the respective learned courts below.

CLAIM IN REVISION PETITION: -

To set aside the orders of the learned courts
below and to decree the suit of the
petitioner/plaintiff against the defendants.

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 petitioner and respondents No. 4 to 8 are irrigators of
outlet No. 32012/R of Ghariala Minor & owners of agricultural
land in Chak No. 9/MR (copy of map and part wara bandi of
outlet No. 32012/R are Annexes “A & B”.
3. That the respondents No. 4 to 8 who earlier have dismantled the
water course of the petitioner twice and the same was ordered to
be restored, out of revenge filed cross case/application to the
Divisional Canal Officer, Multan Canals Division alleging that
water course in Khasra No. 25/4-5 has been dismantled by the
present petitioner resulting in stoppage of canal supply to their
land and the same may be got restored through police help. The
D.C.O. sent the said application to S.D.C.O. for investigation and
report. The field staff of the Irrigation Department conducted
proceedings without associating the petitioner with the inquiry
and submitted their one-sided report recommending restoration of
the alleged dismantled water course from the cultivated land of
the petitioner (copy of application dated 19.2.2000 filed by
respondent No. 4, orders dated 16.2.2000 & 23.2.2000 in favour
of the petitioner are Annexes “C, D & E”
4. That the D.C.O. also without notice, without service and without
providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner vide
his order dated 9.3.2000 directed excavation of Khal in Khasra
No.’s 25/4-5 (copy of order dated 9.3.2000 is Annex “F”.
5. That being aggrieved from the above-said order of the D.C.O. the
petitioner approached the Civil Court by filing a suit for
declaration and permanent injunction restraining the respondents
to construct the impugned water-course from the land of the
petitioner. The learned trial court, while hearing arguments on the
stay application, along-with application also rejected the plaint
under order 7 rule 11 of C.P.C vide its order dated 26.11.2001.
The said orders of the learned trial court were challenged through
appeal but it met the same fate and the learned appeal court, vide
its order and judgment dismissed the appeal, hence, this revision
petition. (Copy of plaint, memo of appeal, impugned orders dated
26.11.2001 & 9.2.2002 are Annexes “G, H, I & J”).
6. That the judgment and orders of the courts below are illegal, void
and against the facts, hence, liable to rejection inter alia on the
following amongst other: -
GROUNDS
i) That the learned trial court has passed its order in a
slipshod manner without taking into consideration the
prevalent circumstances, record of the case and also the
real grievances of the petitioner/plaintiff whose
irrigation has been stopped by respondents No. 4 to 8.
ii) That the learned trial court has wrongly held that the
petitioner/plaintiff have concealed the facts from the
court, whereas the respondents have really concealed
the facts. This is also reflected from their suit wherein
they despite knowledge (as the 3 orders by the Canal
authorities were passed in their presence) did not
mention that earlier three orders for restoration of the
dismantled water-course in Khasra No.’s 25/1-2-3 were
passed against them by the Canal authorities and civil
suit filed by them was also dismissed. (Copy of civil
suit is Annex “K”).
iii) That the learned trial court also ignored the conduct of
the respondents/plaintiffs specially respondent No. 4,
who is a very notorious person prepared fictitious stay
orders of the court to stop the excavation of water-
course from their land (copy of the said order dated
15.3.2000 & copy of police record of respondent No. 4
are Annexes “L & M”).
iv) That the learned courts below also did not notice that
the impugned order was passed without any personal
inquiry by the D.C.O. without associating the petitioner
with the inquiry proceedings as such the same was
liable to be struck down.
v) That the learned courts below did not apply their
judicial mind to the aspect that the superior courts have
prohibited excavation of water-course from the land of
 another person except as given below (i) with mutual
consent, (ii) through an easement, (iii) by acquiring
land under the provision of Canal & Drainage Act
whereas non of these were complied with in the instant
case, hence, the view point of the courts below is not
sustainable in the eye of law.
vi) That the learned appeal court, while pronouncing its
decision has relied upon 1987 CLC 2093 Lahore and
held that interim order could not be challenged before a
civil court, whereas the above-said citation has been
over-ruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan
vide its judgment SCMR 1992--613 according to which
an order under section 68-A of the D.C.O. can
competently be assailed before the civil court.
Keeping in view the above-stated facts, it is
respectfully prayed that this revision petition may very
graciously be accepted and orders of the courts below
be set aside and the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff be
decreed against defendants.
Any other relief which this Hon’ble court deems
fit, may very kindly be extended in the favour of the
petitioner to meet the ends of justice & equity.
HUMBLE PETITIONER,
Dated: ___________
Through: -
Ziad Ahmad Mufti,
Advocate High Court,
6-Allama Iqbal Block,
District Courts, Multan.
CERTIFICATE: -
Certified as per instructions of the client,
that this is the first revision petition on the
subject matter. No such petition has earlier
been filed before this Hon’ble Court.
Advocate

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 REVISION PETITION No._______/2002

Abdul Haq Vs. Province of Punjab etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Abdul Haq S/o Rehmat Ali, caste Jat Sindhu, R/o Chak
No. 9/MR, Tehsil & District Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-titled revision petition 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 February 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
REVISION PETITION No._______/2002

Abdul Haq 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.
PETITIONER

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
REVISION PETITION No._______/2002

Abdul Haq Vs. Province of Punjab etc.

DISPENSATION APPLICATION.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Abdul Haq S/o Rehmat Ali, caste Jat Sindhu, R/o Chak
No. 9/MR, Tehsil & District Multan.

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 February 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.
 REVISION PETITION No._______/2002

Abdul Haq Vs. Province of Punjab etc.

INDEX

S. No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES

1 Urgent Form
2 Stamp Paper.
3 Revision Petition.
4 Affidavit.
5 Copies of map and Rapat. A& B
6 Copies of application and orders. C, D & E
7 Copy of order dated 9.3.2000. F
8 Copies of plaint, memo of appeal & G, H, I & J
orders dated 26.11.2001 & 9.2.2002.
9 Copy of civil suit. K
10 Copy of the order dated 15.3.2000 & L&M
copy of police record.
11 Dispensation Application.
12 Affidavit.
13 Application U/s 151 C.P.C.
14 Affidavit.
15 Vakalatnama

PETITIONER,
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
REVISION PETITION No._______/2002

Abdul Haq Vs. Province of Punjab etc.

Application under section 151 C.P.C.

for the grant of Stay Orders.

The applicant respectfully sheweth as under: -

1. That the above captioned revision petition has been filed before
this August Court.
2. That the contents of the revision petition should be considered as
part and parcel of this application.
3. That the petitioner has a good prima facie case.
4. That the respondents are bent upon to implement the orders of
the D.C.O. In case they succeeded in it, the petitioner will suffer
irreparable loss.
5. That the balance of convenience lies with the applicant.
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that during the
pendency of the revision petition the implementation of
the order of the D.C.O. dated 9.3.2000 may kindly be
suspended. Affidavit is attached.

Humble Applicant
Dated: __________
(Abdul Haq)
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
REVISION PETITION No._______/2002

Abdul Haq Vs. Province of Punjab etc.

STAY APPLICATION.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Abdul Haq S/o Rehmat Ali, caste Jat Sindhu, R/o Chak
No. 9/MR, Tehsil & District Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-titled 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 February 2002 that the contents of this
affidavit are true & correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT