' MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.---Brief resume of the case is that on the application of the petitioner filed under section 68 of the Canal and Drainage Act, Sub-Divisional Canal Officer has passed an order making an amendment in the existing warabandi vide order, dated 5-1-2006.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Divisional Canal Officer vide order, dated 7-3- 2006 has directed the S.D.C.O. To maintain the existing warabandi and restrained him from implementing the order, dated 5-1-2006.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that a civil suit with regard to the same out- let/Moga is pending before the Civil Court and the Court has issued the status quo order and that is why the Divisional Canal Officer has passed the said order maintaining the status quoa issued by the Court.
4. The petitioner has knocked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court with the following prayers:- -
(i) Declaration may kindly be granted to the effect that the order, dated 7-3-2006 (Annexure "E") passed by the respondent No,1 is illegal, fanciful, arbitrary, against the principle of natural justice, mala fide without jurisdiction, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
(ii) Direction may kindly be issued to the respondent to act uponimplement the order, dated 5-1- 2006 (Annexure "D") passed by the respondent No,2.
(iii) Grant an ad interim injunction by suspending the operation of the impugned order, dated 7-3- 2006.
5. The order impugned is not a final order passed on merits. It is simple an instruction issued to the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer to maintain status quo with regard to the existing warabandi prior to the order, dated 5-1-2006.
6. From the above-said circumstances, it is sufficient to infer thatthe question involved in the matter pertains to question of fact which requires recording of evidence and examination of record but the same cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, as laid down in the cases of Benedict F.D Souza v. Karachi Building Control Authority and 3 others (1989 SCM R 918), Federation of Pakistan and 2 others v. Major (Rtd.) Muhammad Sabir Khan (PLD 1991 SC 476), and Muhammad Younas Khan v. Government of N.W.F.P. Through Secretary and others (1993 SCM R 618).
7. Since the matter is already pending in the Civil Court and alternate remedy is available to the petitioner to approach the said Court by filing an application or to approach the Divisional Canal Officer for passing an appropriate order.##TE#
8. Viewed above, this petition having no force is dismissed.