MAZHAR HUSSAIN MINHAS, J.---The petitioner has filed instant civil revision against the judgment and decree, dated 13-7-1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sahiwal, whereby suit for declaration filed by respondent No.2 has been decreed and the judgment and decree, dated 13-4- 2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, whereby appeal has been dismissed.
2. Precisely, the facts giving rise to this revision petition are that respondent No.2 filed a suit for declaration to the effect that trees are standing on both sides of a District Council Road Dad Fatiana-Nai-Wala in the area of Chak No. 7/11L passing througb Square No.59 and 30 minutes water is sanctioned for the trees on this road. The respondents Nos.3 and 4/defendants passed ex parte orders, dated 1-2-1993 and 20-10-1993 respectively whereby they curtailed the duration of the water sanctioned for the road by 15 minutes and it was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner/defendant. It was averred in the plaint that the said orders were liable to be set aside being unlawful, collusive and without notice.
3. The suit was contested by the petitioner/defendant through his written statement whereby he asserted that in the year, 1962, it was B settled between his father and other co-sharers in Mauga No.20000/11L, Chak No.7/11L that the former would the entitled to get water for one hour to irrigate his lands, if he allowed the construction of a Khal through his land. In view of that settlement, water for irrigation of the road trees was diminished by 15 minutes and water for one hour was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner's father.
4. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff has got a locus standi and cause of action against the defendants? OPP
(2) Whether the suit is defective for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
(3) Whether there are trees on the road as alleged in para.2 of the plaint? OPP
(4) Whether the water course has been sanctioned for the road in question for 30 minutes and the same is being used for irrigation purpose? OPP
(5) Whether the defendant No.2 vide his order, dated 1-2-1993 and the defendant No.3 vide his order, dated 20-10-1993 diminished the water of the plaintiff from 30 to 15 minutes and 15 minutes have been granted to defendant No.4 unlawfully? OPP
(6) Whether the impugned orders passed by the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are unlawful, ex parte, collusive and inoperative qua the rights of the plaintiff? OPP
(7) Relief.
5. The contesting parties adduced their respective evidence on the above issues and after going through the record and hearing the arguments, learned trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for.
Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree, petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court, the petitioner has come up in revision.
6. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused with their assistance.
7. The petitioner while appearing as D.W.1 has stated that in a., year, 1962 they were sanctioned water for one hour but the same was reduced by 15 minutes by respondent No.3. Thereupon an appeal was filed which was accepted by respondent No.4 and original Warabandi of C water was restored. He has further stated that there are no trees standing on the roadside nor there is any Khal in existence to water the trees. In support of his case, he has examined D.W.2 Ghulam Rasul son of Haji Muhammad Bukhsh who has also stated that since 13-1-1962 water for one hour is sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and there is no tree standing on the roadside of respondent No.2. On the other hand, respondent No.2 has examined P.W.1 Muhammad Ramzan, Baildar who has stated that there are trees standing on the road passing through Square No.59 in the area of Chak No.7/11L and he has been watering those trees for 30 minutes for the last five years. One year before, he reported to District Council that Irrigation Department had curtailed their water by 15 minutes and has sanctioned the same in favour of the petitioner. P.W.2 Rana Ata Ullah, Superintendent, has supported the statement of P.W.1 and stated that Irrigation Department has curtailed their water by 15 minutes and sanctioned the same to the petitioner, without notice. A copy of Warabandi (Exh.P-1) has been placed on record which shows that Warabandi of District Council Road has been decreased by 15 minutes and added to Warabandi of petitioner. This Warabandi appears to have been prepared in compliance with order, dated 20-10-1993 (Exh.P-2) passed by respondent No.4 in an appeal titled "Khadim Hussain v. Sardar Muhammad and others".
Perusal of Exh.P-2 shows that respondent No.2/plaintiff was not a party in that appeal and its share in Warabandi was decreased without any notice. Thus, it is established from the evidence on record that Warabandi has been arbitrarily changed by respondents Nos.3 and 4 and share of respondent No.2 has been decreased by fifteen minutes on his back. Hence, the orders passed by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are hit by the principle of audit alteram partem and are void and ineffective upon the rights of respondent No.2.
8. In view of the above, judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial Court and learned appellate Court do not suffer from any illegally or material irregularity. Therefore, the revision having no merits is dismissed.