Reply

In the Court of Mr. Javed Mahmood Sindhu, Additional District Judge, Multan.

Muhammad Anwar & others

Vs.

D.C.O. & others

(CIVIL APPEAL) Application for vacation of stay order issued on 10.7.2002. Reply on behalf of respondents/appellants.

Respondents/applicants humbly submit as under: 1.

That para No. 1 need not to be replied.

2.

In reply to para No. 2 it is submitted that the allegation of procuring stay order by misrepresentation is incorrect and baseless.

3.

Para No. 3 of the application is incorrect and not admitted. The stay order is required to be kept intact. The application is liable to rejection in the interest of justice inter-alia on the following: GROUNDS i)

Incorrect. Not admitted. The respondents of their own by taking the law in their hand tried to install the impugned outlets. When objected by the appellants, they became furious and resultantly many persons from the appellants side were seriously injured.

ii)

Incorrect. Not admitted. The appellants will have to face irreparable loss if the stay order is vacated.

iii)

Incorrect. Not admitted. Due to the installation of new outlet upstream, the outlet of respondents/appellants it will adversely effect their irrigation and the applicants/ respondents will get water from the share of the downstream outlets especially the tail outlet (the outlets of the appellants).

iv)

That in reply to this para, it is submitted that through omission the names of 13 persons could not be included whereas power of attorney of all the 43 persons is present on the file. For the rectification of this error, application under order 1, rule 10 filed before this Hon’ble Court has been accepted on 19.7.2002.

v)

Incorrect, the requirements of order 43, rule 3 have been complied with.

vi)

In reply to this para, it is submitted that under the Canal rules, the respondents are not entitled to any extra supply for orchards. The suit has been filed against the fixing of new outlet just upstream, the tail outlets. The respondents of their own have planned to change the size of their outlet just to defeat the case of appellants, as such they are not entitled to any relief. In view of the above-stated facts, it is respectfully prayed that the instant application being against the law and facts, may very graciously be dismissed with cost. Respondents/Appellants,

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