1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.---This is a petition for special leave to appeal from an order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in an application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The parties in this case are sharers of the canal water from Moga No. 220/R of Chak No. 47/BD in Sub-Tehsil Yazman, District Bahawalpur.
2. The present petitioner and the predecessors-in-interest of respondents Nos. 4 to 8, it appears, applied to the Superintending Engineer sometime in 1969 for the supply of additional water for the purposes of a garden. The Superintending Engineer sanction--ed this on the-21st May 1969, and in accordance with it the warabandi was re-fixed by the Divisional Canal Officer on 15-10-1970.
3. The respondents Nos. 1 to 3 being aggrieved by these orders filed a declaratory suit in the Court of the Administrative Civil Judge, Bahawalpur, and also prayed for a permanent injunction. Along with this suit they also made an application for a temporary injunction.
4. The trial Court granted the interim injunction on the 19th December 1970, but in appeal the interim order was set aside by the District Judge of Bahawalpur. From this order respondents Nos. 1 to 3 came to the High Court. The High Court reversed the order of the District Judge and restored that of the trial Court, mainly on the ground that the orders of the Superintend--ing Engineer complained of had been made without giving any notice to the said respondents in disregard of the provisions of section 20 of the Canal and Drainage Act.
5. The contention of the present petitioner that the order had not been made under section 20 of the Act but under para. 9 of Appendix 9 to the said Act, which do not provide for any notice, was repelled on the ground firstly, that even if nothing was said in the rules about notice the principle of audi alteram partem should be read into it, and secondly, that para. 9 of Appendix 9 was not attracted as there was as yet no garden or orchard on the land for which extra supply of water was needed.
6. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has contended that the High Court was in error in taking the view that the provisions of section 20 of the Canal and Drainage Act were attracted in this case. Even if this be so, and the case is governed by the provisions of Para. 9 of Appendix 9, there is yet the other obstacle in the way, viz. That the latter provisions do not expressly rule out the application of the principle of audi alteram partem. Where the consequence of giving extra water to the present petitioner would have been to reduce the supply given to the respondents a notice should have been given to them and they should have been heard. The Superintending Engineer could not arbitrarily reduce their supply of water.
7. In any event, since there is no evidence that any orchard or garden has been planted or is in the process of being planted we see no reason to interfere at this stage, for, the question of law, viz. As to whether the order of the Superintending Engineer was a valid order or not, has yet to be decided in the suit itself.
8. If the petitioner succeeds in the suit he will have the supply restored to him. There can be no question of any irreparable loss or, injury arising at this stage to the petitioner because the order in no way prevents him from continuing with his work of preparing the land for the orchard if he is so minded.
9. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the order of the High Court which appears to have been passed upon cogent and substantial grounds. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed but the trial Court should see to it that the suit is disposed of as early as possible. It should also come to its own independent decision without being influenced in any way by the observations of the High Court in the order passed by it in its revisional jurisdiction. These observations were made only for the purpose of determining whether a prima facie case existed or not and could not have been intended to be made as a final decision of the question.