This revision petition is directed against the order dated 1-9-6-1974 passed by learned District Judge, Sahiwal, whereby he rejected the appeal and confirmed the order dated 25-3-1974 of the learned Civil Judge, Sahiwal.
2. The petitioner installed a tube-well in the land situated in Chak No. 162/9-L. District Sahiwal and defaulted in making payment of the bill to WAPDA for the alleged consumption of electricity. The petitioner appre-hending disconnection of the electricity, instituted civil suit and sought permanent injunction restraining respondents-defendants from disconnecting electric supply to the tube-well. The learned Civil Judge vide his order dated 25-3-1974 held that the payment of the outstanding amount would not cause irreparable loss to the petitioner and rejected his application for temporary injunction. The aforementioned order was assailed in appeal but the same was dismissed on-16-6-1974 by the learned District Judge, Sahiwal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the land in dispute in which tube-well was installed was taken over by the Military Authorities during 1971 War and the land was devastated by Military operations. It was asserted that petitioner could not reap the harvests and remained unable to pay the outstanding amount. He argued that the balance of convenience tilted in fact; in favour of the petitioner and the Courts below did not advert to this aspect of the case.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the arguments advanced by his adversary hardly attracted the provisions of section 115, C. P. C. Calling for interference in the impugned orders. It was submitted that the concurrent findings of the subordinate Courts are neither illegal nor suffer from material irregularity which may justify interfer--ence by this Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the obser--vation of the learned Civil Judge duly concurred by the District Judge that the payment of the specific disputed amount would not cause irreparable loss to the petitioner is unexceptionable. It is true that in the event the suit is decreed in his favour, he could claim compensation. The reasoning advanced and discretion exercised by the learned Civil Judge and District Judge in refusing to grant stay in this case can neither be described fanciful nor arbitrary.
6. In matters where the discretion has been exercised by the 'sub-ordinate Courts while disposing of application -for temporary injunction is neither arbitrary nor perverse, this Court in the exercise of limited revisional jurisdic--petition as envisaged under section 115, C. P. C. Would be reluctant to interfere in the impugned orders. In Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan and another PLD1970SC139, it was held; "It may also be pointed out, with all respect to the learned Single Judge, that he was exercising a limited jurisdiction in revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code which is meant primarily for correcting errors made by the Subordinate Courts in the exercise of their jurisdic--petition and not those which are made in their discretion, unless the discretion is found to have been exercised fancifully or arbitrarily."
8. For the reasons recorded above, there is no substance in this petition which in dismissed with costs.