' This revision petition calls in question the legality and propriety of the orders dated 21-1-1976 and 27.11-1975 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan and Senior Civil Judge, Multan, whereby the application seeking temporary injunction by the petitioners was disallowed and the order was maintained in appeal.
2. The relevant facts leading to this petition are that the petitioners assailed by means of declaratory suit the order of the Divisional Canal Officer dated 4-8-1975 whereby he accepted the appeal against the order dated 21-12-1973 of the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer. The petitioners also moved an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. For the grant of interim injunction restraining the respondents from implementing the order of the Divisional Canal Officer during the pendency of the suit. The application was rejected on 27-11-1975 by the Civil Judge and that order was maintained in appeal on 21-11-976 by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order of the Divisional Canal Officer including 10 acres of land of Square No, 31 in the Warabandi for irrigation from outlet No, 13400/2-R-11-L was in violation of the procedure laid down under section 20 of the Canal and Drainage Act. It was submitted that the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss if temporary injunction prayed for is not granted till the pendency of the suit. Learned counsel further stated that the subordinate Courts erroneously exercised jurisdiction in refusing to grant temporary injunction.
The illegality occurred attracts the provisions of section 115, C. P. C. For correction and interference in the matter.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the decision on the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners has direct bearing on the decision of the suit which cannot be decided while disposing of application for temporary injunction. It was submitted that the respondents had been irrigating the land in dispute since 1939 from outlet No, 13400/2-R-11-L as such the balance of convenience tilted in favour of the respondents not to disrupt the arrangement made for the last many years.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the arguments advanced by them.
Learned counsel for the petitioners did not controvert the position that the land in dispute was being irrigated through outlet No, 13400/2-R-11-L since 1939. The question regarding the legality of the impugned order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer is subject-matter of the suit which would be decided on merits by the trial Court.
The discretion exercised by the Courts below in refusing to grant temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners cannot be interfered with in the exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court as provided under section 115, C. P. C. The revisional powers as contemplated under section 115, C. P.
C. Meant primarily for correcting errors made by the subordinate Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction and not those which are made in their discretion unless the discretion exercised by them is found to be arbitrary or perverse.
6. For the foregoing reasons there is no substance in this petition which stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
' However, the learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within three months if the same has not already been disposed of.