PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND Another vs Mst. GHULAM FATIMA AND Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which quashed an appellate order granting a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The underlying dispute arose from a suit filed by the Province of Punjab challenging an order of the Superintending Canal Officer that permitted the respondents' predecessor-in-interest to consolidate water drawal from a single outlet. While the trial court initially rejected the application for a temporary injunction, the Additional District Judge allowed it on appeal. Subsequently, the High Court set aside this appellate order, reasoning that the administrative order in question had already been implemented, rendering the injunction application infructuous. Upon review, the Supreme Court summoned departmental officers to verify the status of the implementation. Based on the officers' confirmation that the consolidation of the water outlet had indeed been executed, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision. The Court affirmed that where an administrative order has already been implemented, an application for a temporary injunction against that order becomes infructuous.
- Does the implementation of an administrative order render an application for a temporary injunction against that order infructuous?
- Can an appellate court's order granting an injunction be quashed if the underlying subject matter has already been executed?
- Order XXXIX Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XXXIX Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-The matter relates to an interlocutory order made under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. The petitioner, that is the Province of Punjab, brought a suit for a declaration and injunction against the order of the Superintending Canal officer, allowing Bashir Ahmad, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, to draw his entire requirement of water from one outlet, i. e., No. 20722/L instead of two. An application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 was made in the suit which was rejected by the trial Court but was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Rahimyarkhan, in appeal. In revision moved by the respondents, it was brought to the notice of the High Court that the order of Superintending Canal Officer had already been implemented and as such the. Application had become infructuous. The High Court accordingly by its order, dated 21-4- 1982 quashed the order of the Additional District Judge.
2. Since the parties were at variance on the question whether the order of the Superintending Canal Officer had already been implemented, we summoned the officers from the Department.
M/s. Sharif Ahmad, Superintending Canal Officer, Muzaffar Hussain, Executive Engineer, and Inayat Ullah, S. D. O., from the Department are present and inform this Court that the order was in fact already implemented and that the respon--dents have been drawing water from the consolidated outlet No. 20722/L. That being so, no exception can be taken to the impugned order of the High Court. The petition is dismissed.
S. Q.