1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- This appeal through leave of this Court is directed against judgment, dated 3-8-1973 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Civil Revision arising out of a request for maintenance of status quo during the pendency of a civil suit relating to the orders of Canal Authorities, was dismissed.
2. The appellants had filed a civil suit challenging the orders passed by the Canal Authorities regarding change of a watercourse. During the pendency of the suit they sought the maintenance of status quo regarding the continuance of the allegedly old existing watercourse. The request was allowed by the learned trial Court. The respondents' appeal was allowed and the order of the learned lower Court was set aside. The appellants then filed a revision petition in the High Court and pressed the ground that the learned District Court "did not properly consider the question of irreparable loss". The attempt to get the order of trial Court restored however failed in the High Court. On a petition this Court had granted leave to appeal to examine whether"the District Judge and the High Court have exercised the discretion properly".
3. It is most unfortunate that the civil suit has not yet been decided by the trial Court. The parties could have made a request for expeditious disposal of this appeal. Even otherwise the record of the case could have been sent to the trial Court on the request of either of the parties. Be that as it may a careful scrutiny of the appellate judgment which was impugned before the High Court shows that the B learned District Court was conscious about all the relevant factors for grant/refusal of a temporary injunction.
4. After having carefully examined the various relevant factors involved in the case the learned District Court made the following observation with regard to the conditions of irreparable loss and balance of convenience: "Leaving aside this fact, there is considerable force in the contention of the appellant that it was he, who was suffering loss and such balance of convenience was in his favour as the order of the S.C.O.
5. Supports this contention of the appellant and lastly, there is no question of irreparable loss to the respondents Nos.l to 11 in the case. If the water channel is changed they would continue to get supply of water. Prima facie therefore, it was not a fit case, to my mind, to grant an injunction pending decision of the suit."
6. To the extent it was permissible for the High Court to re-examine the questions considered in the appellate judgment when exercising its revisional jurisdiction, the question of irreparable loss was also taken note of. Learned counsel for the appellant has, however, contended that the appellants had a strong case to succeed because allegedly the Superintending Engineer had not afforded an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. The learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently contradicted this assertion. It being a highly disputed fact we would confine to the question raised by the appellants before the High Court namely that of irreparable loss.
7. After hearing both the learned counsel on this aspect of the matter we are unable to hold that the discretion exercised by the learned to Courts below is in contravention of any accepted principle. It is not the case of the appellants that in absence of a temporary injunction it would not be possible for them to irrigate their lands on' account of the change of the watercourse. The questions of detail regarding the situation at the spot vis-a-vis the point of gravitational flow raised by the learned counsel were for the Irrigation Authority for consideration. If as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the S.C. Afforded the appellants an opportunity of hearing, it was that forum where such matters should have been agitated.
8. With the foregoing observation we find no justification for interference. This appeal accordingly is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.