' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners are owners in possession of land fully described in para 2 of the civil revision.
Agricultural land of the petitioners as well as the respondents was being irrigated from Moga No.13788/TF Rajbah Soochan. Respondent No.1 tried to make an illegal watercourse from the land of the petitioners which was not sanctioned in the record of irrigation department from North to South while the sanctioned Khal which is in operation is from East to West. Later on, respondent No.1 due to political influence obtained an illegal order from respondent No.2 for making an extra watercourse from the land of the petitioners.
2. That the father of the petitioners challenged the order of respondent No.2 by filing a declaratory suit which was resisted by the other party. Learned trial Court after framing of issues and record of evidence, decreed the suit of the petitioners on 11-11-2009.
3. That respondent No.1-filed an appeal which was dismissed on 2-6-2010 by the learned Additional District Judge but the learned appellate court after dismissing the appeal of respondent No.1 added para 10 in his judgment that the appellant may approach the Canal Officer for his redress.
4. That the petitioners against para 10 of the judgment filed a review petition before the learned appellate court that since the matter has been finally decided by the Civil Court so it cannot be re- opened under the Canal and Drainage Act but the learned appellate court dismissed the review petition without any reason. Hence, this civil revision.
5. Learned counsel for respondent department has fully opposed this civil revision and contended that the petitioners have made a criminal assault against the respondents and have been violating the law, therefore, civil revision be dismissed.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Vide judgment and decree dated 2-6-2010, the learned Additional District Judge, Pakpatan Sharif has passed an exhaustive judgment. Para 10 of the impugned judgment is reproduced as under:-- "This order shall not preclude appellant from moving the application under section 68 of the Canal and Drainage Act to the Canal Authorities for the restoration of water course from the suit khasra or front any khasra for the irrigation of his land if so legally advised. If any such petition is, moved by the appellant/ defendant, I am no doubt sure that the Canal Authorities will proceed in accordance with law."
8. Admittedly, the matter falls under the Canal and Drainage Act which provides adequate relief in case of any dispute. The impugned judgment and decree dated 2-6-2010 was passed in accordance with law and para 10 of the judgment is neither against the law nor this para infringes the rights of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners failed to point out any illegality in the impugned judgment. Civil revision is devoid of merit, same is dismissed.