1. ' The petitioners herein are owners of agricultural land under water. The respondents applied to the Irrigation Authorities for the amendment of Warabandi which was amended by the Authorities, therefore, the petitioners were aggrieved by the new Warabandi and filed suit for declaration that they were deprived of irrigation water to their lands for halt' an hour. Along-with the plaint the petitioners also filed an application for temporary injunction which was dismissed by the learned trial Judge and the appeal of the petitioners before the District Judge also failed having been dismissed by order dated 20-6-1983. Hence this revision application.
2. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. A reference to the impugned order of the learned District Judge will show that the petitioners had not filed e copy of the new Warabandi, therefore, he observed that it can yet be determined as to what amount of irrigation water was reduced from the share of the petitioners in favour of the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners was asked to show that in the absence of any material for the present on record how can it be determined that by the introduction of the new Warabandi, his clients were deprived of irrigation water for half an hour. He did not make a satisfactory reply in this behalf. In these circumstances, I observed that even if the quantity of water for irrigation was reduced from the lands of the petitioners, yet it is not possible to hold so unless evidence in this behalf is recorded. Even otherwise, the respondents will have the right to show that the new Warabandi introduced for the irrigation of the agricultural lands in the vicinity is proper and is doing justice between the parties. The petitioners will have also the right to lead evidence in rebuttal and it is for the trial Court to resolve the dispute between the parties on the basis of evidence recorded by him. For the present, as the petitioners failed to bring on record any material to show that they werel4 deprived of some irrigation water available to them before the introduction! Of new Warabandi, the two Courts below rightly declined to issue temporary; injunction in their favour.
3. ' This revision application is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
4. WINVOMNOmm.