' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- On 13-9-2003 the petitioners filed a suit against the respondents. In the plaint, order dated 30-6-2003 passed by respondent'No,3 and 8-9-2003 passed by respondent No,4 (in appeal) were questioned on the ground that the said orders deprived the petitioner of the right of Nakal. Along with the suit an application was filed for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from implementing the said orders. The suit as well as the application was contested by the respondents Nos.1 and 2. Vide order dated 12-12-2003 the learned trial Court dismissed the said application. A first appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Vehari on 2-10-2004.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends with reference to the copy of Warabandi and the Chak Plan that the orders passed by the Canal Officers deprived his client of the right of Nakal.
3. I have examined the copies of the records, with the assistance of the learned counsel. Now I find that the Wara (turn) as also the irrigation time remains intact. The fresh Waras have been prepared in order to enable the respondents to irrigate their land located in different squares A from the same source. To my mind, prima facie no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by the said orders. The civil revision is dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.