1. ' MUZAFFAR ALI, J.--- Counsel for the parties heard. The upshot of the heading note of the plaint is that, the plaintiffs/respondents have claimed perpetual injunction in respect of the disputed channel, with the contention, that the disputed channel is exclusively owned by them and only the plaintiffs/respondents are entitled to irrigate their lands through the water of the disputed channel and the defendants have no any right to restrain the plaintiffs from the above right.
2. ' The above note clearly indicates that, the plaintiffs have not sought possession, of any land in their plaint, hence the learned trial Court has not only deviated from the pleadings, but also has shown to be more active than that of the plaintiffs, by directing the Tehsildar Gupis to hand over the 21 Kanals Land to the plaintiffs, without looking into the nature of the suit or plaint. Such conduct of the Judges may cause erosion in the confidence of the public over the Courts of law and the confidence of the Public is the real asset of the Judges, therefore, the learned 1st Appellate Court has rightly held the above direction of the trial Court to be of no legal consequences, but at the some time the learned First Appellate Court has also erred in law by dismissing the appeal in the operative part of the impugned judgment while, once the learned Additional Judge has held the above directives of the trial Judge to be without legal sanction and of no legal consequence then he ought to have allowed the appeal partially by setting the above directives aside.
3. ' Consequent upon the above discussion I, therefore, accept the revision petition partly and cancel the directives of the learned trial Judge to the Tehsildar Gupis about the delivery of the possession of the 21 Kanals land to the respondents and maintain the finding of the 1st Appellate Court to the extent that the plaintiffs/respondents are entitled to irrigate their lands if any in their possession, carrying the water from the existing disputed channel pending disposal of the suit, but the plaintiffs/respondents are not allowed to dig out a new channel in the disputed area pending disposal of the suit finally on merits.
4. ' No order as to costs.