' The facts as stated by the learned counsel for the parties are that a warabandi was amended by the Sub. Divisional Canal Officer by order dated the 11th October, 1971 and this order became final as no appeal was filed against it by any of the parties. Subsequently petitioners Nos. 1 to 8 submitted an application for separation of their khatas. Another application was similarly made by the respondents. Both these applications were decided by the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer on the 15th November, 1971. The respondents filed an appeal against this order which was allowed without an opportunity of being heard being given to petitioners Nos. 9 to 32 although the order affects them. The petitioners' filed a suit for declaration that this order of the Divisional Canal Officer was illegal, inoperative and without jurisdiction and was liable to be cancelled. They also submitted an application for temporary injunction for restraining the respondents from acting upon the impugned order of the Divisional Canal Officer. This petition was dismissed by the Administrative, Civil Judge, Multan for the reason that such an application was not competent in view of the law laid down in PLD 1962 Lah. 317 The petitioner filed an appeal which also was dismissed for the same reason and it was held that bar regarding any injunction was absolute under section 68 of the Canal and Drainage Act.
2. This authority is not applicable to the fact of the present case as according to the prima facie finding given by the learned Additional District Judge, the order of the Divisional Officer was passed without notice to petitioners Nos. 9 to 32. As such this order was void as held A by the Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Swaleh v. United Grain and Fodder Agencies. Prima facie this order does not exist and the bar provided by section 68 cannot be invoked to deprive the petitioners of their plea of temporary injunction.1
3. I, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Courts below and allow the petition for temporary injunction.
' There will be no order as to costs. PLD 1964 SC 97