UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---The Divisional Canal Officer respondent No,2 passed an order dated 24-12- 2008 closing down the outlet No,5800/I from which the petitioners were receiving irrigation water and shifted their land to outlet No,3783/L of Rerka Minor. The petitioners' were aggrieved by such shifting. He accordingly challenged the aforesaid order before respondent No,1 who on 17-3-2009 affirmed the order of the DCO in the following terms:-- "In the light of above circumstances and scrutiny of the revenue missal, as per attached command statement that 30 acres area can be irrigated with working head 2.56 ft from Outlet RD.3783/L of Rerka Minor. The request of the respondents irrigators regarding shifting Head of Outlet RD 5800/L to RD 8800/L of Rerka Minor is genuine and based on fact, therefore, the decision of Divisional Canal Officer, Gujrat Division UJC, Gujrat dated 24-12-2008 is hereby confirmed."
' It is noted that water supply from outlet No,RD5800/L had been cut off due to dismantling of the water course by the construction of a metalled road. As a result the respondents irrigators were not receiving irrigation water in their land.
2. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the orders of the canal authorities. The learned trial court by its order dated 20-5-2009 granted interim relief and suspended the order passed by respondents Nos.1 and 2. That interim injunction was recalled by learned appellate court vide order dated 28-7-2009.
3. This matter concerning interim relief has been prolonging since 2009 whereas the civil suit filed by the petitioners has made no progress. The important point of consideration is whether the balance of convenience between the parties to the lis is served by an interim injunction. Learned Addl. A.G. On instructions from departmental officers has explained that irrigators with 470 acres of land are not receiving satisfactory supply of irrigation water as a result of the interim restoration of outlet No,5800/L.
4. In the matter of interim relief also, it is a mandate of law that the interest of all the parties concerned must be attended to. Therefore, apart from the fact that the competent irrigation authorities have expressed their view in favour of the impugned modification of the irrigation water supply, until evidence is brought on record by the plaintiff petitioner showing that the respondent irrigators were also receiving satisfactory supply of canal water under the outlet RD-5800/L, it is premature for this Court to direct an injunction that is harmful to the irrigation requirements of the respondents. As an interim measure an arrangement which serves the interests of all irrigators, both petitioners and the respondents, must be adopted even though such arrangement may not fully satisfy such persons. The allegation that outlet No,3783/L is not capable of satisfactorily supplying water needs of petitioners' land is no ground for rejecting that arrangement by ignoring the detriment caused to the respondents irrigators.
5. Accordingly, the arrangement proposed by the departmental authorities is restored until the decision of the suit. As the matter before learned trial court has already prolonged for over two years, it is directed that same shall be decided within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
6. Petition disposed of.