' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--On 27-3-2006 the respondents Nos.1 to 5 field a suit against the petitioners and the official respondents. In the plaint, it was stated that they are irrigating their lands from Mogha No,137712/TF while the petitioners purchased land in the same Chak to be irrigated from Mogha No,137712/TR. They filed an application before respondent No,7 for transferring their land measuring 65 Acres to the said Mogha at 137712/TF. This was allowed vide order, dated 6- 8-2005. An appeal filed by the respondents Nos.1 to 5 before the respondent No, 8 was dismissed on 13-3-2006. Both these orders were stated to be illegal and void. Along with the suit an application was filed for grant of temporary injunction, for not implementing the said orders. The suit was resisted by the petitioners. Their plea was that there had been no shortage of water discharged at the Mogha in question because of the inclusion of the said land. The application was allowed by learned trial Court on 6-5-2006 who granted' the temporary injunction as prayed for. A first appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by a learned ADJ, Sargodha, on 6-11-2006.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the learned courts below have failed to read the orders passed by the Canal Authorities wherein extra water to maintain the discharge requisite for the additional land was duly provided and as such there was no question of any irreparable loss. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that on account of the said land, the irrigation time has been reduced. Ziladar has produced the command statement and the form for alteration to outlets for my examination.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. The said orders have been passed by the Canal Authorities after hearing both the parties. The DCO in his order has made provisions in detail for enhancement of the discharge at the said Mogha No,137712/TF. The record produced by the said Canal official fully supports the contends of the said order. Whereas the earlier discharge was 1.61 cusecs, after the inclusion of the said 65 Acres (whereby the total area in the command of the said Mogha comes to 637 Acres) has been increased to 1.94.
4. The decrease in the water time has also been explained by the said official to be proportionate to, increase in the discharge of the water at the said Mogha.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents has been accordingly called upon to demonstrate as to how he supports the observation of the learned courts below that there is a shortage of water at the Mogha because of the addition of the land of the petitioners. He has nothing to say and I do not find anything on record in support of the said plea of the respondents. The learned courts below have, therefore, acted without jurisdiction while granting temporary injunction and dismissing the appeal when the respondents/plaintiffs have no prima facie case and that the other two questions are also liable to be answered in favour of the petitioners. The civil revision is accordingly allowed.
Both the impugned order are set aside. And the temporary injunction granted by the learned courts below is vacated. No order as to costs.