1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-This petition for leave to appeal is directed against an order made by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on the 11th of December 1972, whereby a revision petition instituted by the petitioners, in the matter of an interim injunction granted by the lower appellate Court, was summarily dismissed.
2. The relevant facts are that on the 18th of September 1972, the Sub---Division Canal Officer made an order permitting the present petitioners to take water from the same watercourse as was irrigating the lands of the respondents, although previously they were being served by a different water--course, which also took its supply of water from the same Mogha or outlet on Darsoo Minor.
3. The Sub-Divisional Canal Officer purported to as under section 68 of the Canal and Drainage Act.
4. The respondents challenged the legality of this order by filing a civil suit. They also prayed for the suspen--sion of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer during the pendency of the suit. The application for interim relief was, however, rejected by the learned Civil Judge on 15-11- 1972.
5. The respondents filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned District Judge of Muzaffargarh by his order dated the- 27th of November 1972, mainly on the ground that the impugned order prima facie appeared to fall under section 20 of the Act, as the dispute did not relate to the sharing of water and warabandi on the same watercourse, but involved a shifting from one watercourse to the other. The learned District Judge observed that an order under section 20 of the Act could not become effective and binding without the approval of the Superintending Canal Officer which approval had not been obtained in this case. He also expressed the view that the defendants were already getting water from their own watercourse, and, therefore, the other requirements for the issuance of the temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs were also present in this case, of the matter, a temporary injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs.
6. Aggrieved by the appellate order, the present petitioners went up in revision, but the same has been dismissed by the High Court on the ground that it was conceded that the decision of the Divisional Canal Officer may-- fall under section 20 of the Canal and Drainage Act, and that the approval of the Superintending Engineer had not been taken as required by that section. In these circumstances, the view of the learned District Judge regarding the existence of a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff's was upheld, and it was also observed that as the petitioners were irrigating their lands froth their own watercourse, therefore, no irreparable loss and injury would be caused to them.
7. It is submitted by Mr. D. M. Awan the learned counsel for the petitioners, that:-
(a) The Court below have erred in thinking that the case was one under section 20 of-the Act and not section 68 thereof, as the petitioners had not asked for a fresh supply of canal water on the contrary there was a question only of regulating their existing supply from the same outlet ;
(b) The Courts below have ignored the provision contained in section 68 of the Act that the order made by the Divisional Canal Officer (or the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer after the amendments introduced by Ordinance of 1970) was final until varied by the decree of a civil Court, and no injunction could be granted in the matter during the pendency of the suit, as held in Muhammad Saeed v. Fateh Muhammad (PLD 1962 Lah. 317);
(c) The plaintiffs had not shown any justification for the suspension of the impugned order, as it had not resulted in an diminution of their water supply.
8. We consider that the contention raised by the learned counsel are such as have a direct bearing on the final disposal of the suit pending between the parties before the Civil Court, and, therefore, any views expressed by us at this stage are likely to prejudice one side or the other. It is, however, correct that the present petitioners were getting their supply of water from another watercourse, although taking of from the same outlet, and, therefore, the effect of the interim order- made by the learned District Judge in appeal, and upheld by the High Court in revision, is only to maintain status quo between the: parties. We would not, therefore, like to interfere in the matter at this stage.
9. We would, accordingly, dismiss this petition, but direct the learned Civil Judge to dispose of the suit within a period of three months at the latest: as the patter appears to turn on legal questions, without involving any oral evidence.