' By this revision application the petitioners have challenged the judgment of District Judge Tharparkar, Mirpur Khas, dated 4th January, 1983, whereby the learned District Judge had dismissed the appeal of the appellants and upheld order of Senior Civil Judge Mirpur Khas, dated 22nd September, 1982. By the said order the learned Civil Judge had allowed injunction application of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed in 1st Class Suit No,313 of 1982.
2. The facts of the case are that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed Civil Suit No, 313/82 before the Civil Judge Mirpur Khas praying, inter alia the following reliefs:- "(i) Declaration that the holding of Cattle Piri at Pithoro by the defendant No,1 through defendants Nos. 3 and 4 within the area of 5 miles of Cattle Piri of plaintiff, is illegal, unwarranted, bad in law, mala fide, void, ab initio and against the principle of natural justice.
(ii) Permanent Injunction restraining and prohibiting the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 from holding any Piri within area of Cattle Piri of plaintiff, either by themselves or through his agents, servants or other person working under their instructions in any manner."
' Alongwith the suit the said respondents had also filed an injunction application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Praying that the petitioners may be restrained from holding Piri within an area of five miles of Cattle Piri of the plaintiffs (respondents Nos.1 and 2). After hearing the parties the learned Civil Judge, by his order, dated 22nd September,1982 allowed the injunction application in terms of the prayer made therein.
3. The petitioners filed appeal against the said order which was dismissed by the learned District Judge Mirpur Khas by the impugned order, dated 4th January,1983. The main question for determination in this revision application is whether the two Courts below have acted with material irregularity in issuing a temporary injunction against the petitioners.
4. It may be stated that Union Council Aroro Bhurgari Taluka Mirpurkhas had permitted its contractor Muhammad Imran to hold Cattle Piri within its jurisdiction. The limits of this Union Council are adjacent to the limits of Town Committee Pathoro. This Town Committee also allowed its contractor Muhammad Ahsan petitioner No,2 to hold a Cattle Piri within its jurisdiction at a distance of about 2 miles from the Cattle Piri of Aroro Union Council. Aggrieved by this act of the Town Committee respondent No,1 approached the Chairman of the Co-ordination Committee, Tharparkar to prevent the Town Committee from holding Cattle Piri within the radius of five miles from the Cattle Piri of Union Council Aroro Bhurgari. By this order, dated 10th August 1982, the Chairman of the District Coordination Committee passed the following order:-- "The Town Committee Pithoro is restrained or stopped not to hold Cattle Piri within the radius of (5) five miles of Cattle Piri of Union Council, Aroro Bhurgari being held at Bacha Bund. Matter is stayed till further orders."
' This order was passed during the pendency of the . Suit of respondents Nos.1 and 2 before Senior Civil Judge, Mirpurkhas.
5. The Senior Civil Judge had, while issuing the injunction, relied on an earlier order, dated 27th March,1980 of Deputy Commissioner, Tharparkar passed in connection with Cattle Piri in another Union Council namely, Union Council Fakir Abdullah, whereby he had ordered that a Cattle Piri should not be allowed to be held within the limits of a Union Council at a place within a radius of five miles of the Cattle Piri existing within the jurisdiction of an adjacent Union Council. The learned Senior Civil Judge and the First Appellate Court have taken this order of Deputy Commissioner (Annexure 'H') as a precedent in holding that the Pithoro Town Committee was not entitled to hold Cattle Piri within a radius of five miles from the Cattle Piri of Union Council, Aroro Bhurgari. The next document which was relied upon by the Courts below in allowing the injunction application of the Union Council was the order of Chairman, District Co-ordination Committee, Tharparkar, Mirpurkhas dated 10th August, 1982 quoted hereinabove.
6. So far as the powers and functions of a Union Council are concerned, Mr.S. A. Wadood learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on section 40 of the Sind Local Government Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the said Ordinance). Subsection (1) of section 40 lays down that a Town Committee shall undertake all or any of the functions mentioned in Schedule II of the said Ordinance, while a Union Council shall undertake all or any of the functions mentioned in Schedule IV of the said Ordinance. It has further been argued by Mr.S. A. Wadood that Schedule IV relating to the functions of Union Councils does not contain any item in respect of holding Cattle Piris, whereas according to Schedule II, Item 19(1) empowers a Town Committee to establish public markets for sale of animals and also make bye-laws to provide for fees to be charged in respect of animals brought for sale within its jurisdiction. It would appear that no such power of holding animal markets has been mentioned in Schedule IV relating to functions of Union Council. It appears that both the Courts have failed to advert to these provisions of law in allowing the injunction application of respondents Nos.1 and 2.
7. Mr.Hatif Khudai learned counsel for respondent No,1 has relied on the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Annexure 'H') whereby the Deputy Commissioner had held in some other dispute between two Union Councils that Cattle Piri within the jurisdiction of a Union Council shall not be permitted to be held within the radius of five miles of the Cattle Piri already existing within the jurisdiction of another Union Council. This order was passed on 27th March,1980 in connection with an appliction of Union Council Fakir Abdullah for permission to hold Cattle Piri within its jurisdiction in Village Chil Bund. This order has been taken by the Courts below to be a precedent for holding that respondents Nos.1 and 2 had a prima facie case for claiming temporary injunction against Town Committee Pithoro. Mr.S.A. Wadood learned counsel for the petitioners has, however, argued that under the said Ordinance the Deputy Commissioner has no powers of controlling authority over the Local Councils, nor the order, dated 27th March, 1980 can be taken as a precedent for holding that there was justification for issuing injunction against the Town Committee. There is force in this contention of Mr.S. A. Wadood. The said Ordinance does not provide that Deputy Commissioner shall be the controlling authority for the Local Councils or that his order in connection with dispute in respect of a particular Union Council shall be taken as a precedent to be followed in cases of other Union Councils. The Courts below have, therefore, erred in holding that the Union Council Aroro Bhurgari was entitled to prevent the Town Committee Pithoro from permitting Cattle Piri to be held within a radius of five miles from the Cattle Piri within its own jurisdiction.
8. Mr. Hatif Khudai learned counsel for the respondent No,1 has referred to the order of the Chairman, District Coordination Committee Tharparkar (Annexure 'G') quoted hereinabove which was passed during the pendency of the suit on 10th August, 1982, whereby he had ordered that the Town Committee Pithoro is restrained from holding any Cattle Piri within its jurisdiction within a radius of 5 miles from the Cattle Piri at Bacha Bund within the jurisdiciton of Union Council Aroro Bhurgari. He has also referred to the powers of the District Co-ordination Committee as envisaged in section 91(1) of the said Ordinance. It has been laid down in subsection (1) of said section 91 of the said Ordinance that if any dispute arises between two or more Councils, the matter shall be referred to the District Co-ordination Committee if the parties concerned are in the same District.
Subsection (2) of section 91 provides that the decision of the authority to which the dispute is referred, shall be final and binding on the Council concerned. It has, therefore, been argued that order of the Chairman dated 10th August, 1982 preventing the Town Committee from permitting to hold Cattle Piri within a radius of five miles from the Cattle Piri of Bacha Bund within Union Council Aroro Bhurgari in binding upon the Town Committee.
9. It is to be seen whether the order, dated 10th August, 1982 of the Chairman of the District Co- ordination Committee can, under the said Ordinance, be deemed to be a decision of the District Co-ordination Committee. Section 91 of the said Ordinance does not give power to the Chairman to give decision on behalf of District Co-ordination Committee. The authority mentioned in subsection (2) of section 91 is the District Co-ordination Committee and not the Chairman of the Committee, whose decision shall be deemed to be binding upon a Local Council subordinate to such Co-ordination Committee. The order dated 10th August, 1982 does not purport to be an order of the Co-ordination Committee. This order has been passed by the Chairman who, according to section 91(1)(a), does not by himself constitute the District Co-ordiritation Committee. Hence the order of the Chairman cannot prima facie be deemed to be the order of District Co-ordination Committee. Constitution of District Co-ordination Committee has been provided for in the Sind Divisional and District Coordination Committee (Constitution) Rules, 1980 framed by the Provincial Government in exercise of powers under section 103 read with section 89 of the said Ordinance.
According to the schedule to the said Rules, the Co-ordination Committee Tharparkar consists of Chairman Municipal Committee Tharparkar, Chairman District Council Tharparkar, one member from Town Committee elected by the Chairman and 8 members from District Councils and Union Councils including two Chairmen of Taluka Councils. Rule 9 of the siad Rules lays down the procedure for disposal of business of the Co-ordination Committee. sub-rule (4) of rule 9 says that notice of a meeting of the Committee shall be given by the Chief Executive of the Committee appointed by the Government. According to notification, dated 12th May, 1980 issued by the Provincial Government in pursuance of section 91(2) of the said Ordinance read with rule 9(4) of the said Rules, the Chief Executive of the District Co-ordination Committee shall be Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development). It would thus appear that rule 9 of the said Rules and the Notification issued by the Provincial Government nowhere provide that the decision of the District Co-ordination Committee shall be expressed in terms of the order of the Chairman of such Committee. Prima facie the order of the Chairman, dated 10th August, 1982 does not fall within the four corners of the powers of District Co-ordination Committee.
10. Mr.Hatif Khudai, learned counsel for the respondent, has relied on the case of Jamaluddin v.
Shah Murad and 9 others PLD 1976 Kar.174 in which it has been held that powers under section 115, C.P.C. Are limited and primarily meant for correcting errors made by subordinate Courts in exercise of jurisdiction and not for correcting orders made in their discretion, unless the discretion is found to have been exercised fancifully or arbitrarily. In support of the above view reliance has been placed on Muhammad Umer Beg v. Sultan Muhammad Khan PLD 1970 SC 139.
11. Mr.S. A. Wadood learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the case of Iltafur Rehman v.
Bostan 1968 SCMR 1350 in which it was held that concurrent findings of lower Courts can be interfered with in revision under section 115, C.P.C. If findings are based on no evidence.
' He has also relied on Kanwal and 3 others v. Fateh Khan and 2 others PLD 1983 SC 53 in which it was held, inter alia, that revisional powers can be exercised in interfering with orders which are based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence.
12. It has already been shown above that order of the Deputy Commissioner, dated 27th March,1980 upon which both the Courts below have relied, has no statutory sanction. The other order relied upon by First Appellate Court is that of the Chairman of the District Co-ordination Committee, dated 10th August, 1982, which isprima facie not covered by any provisions of the said Ordinance or Rules framed thereunder. The impugned orders are, therefore, based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence and as such are liable to be interfered within revision.
For the above reasons I hold that the two Courts below have acted with material irregularity in holding that the order of the Chairman of District Co-ordination Committee was binding upon the Town Committee and that the Town Committee was not entitled to permit Cattle Piri to be held within a radius of five miles from the Cattle Piri in the jurisdiction of Union Council Aroro Bhurgari.
Consequently the revision application is allowed, the orders of the two Courts below are set aside and the injunction application filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 is dismissed. As intricate questions of law were involved in this case, hence there shall be no order as to costs.