' This revision is directed against order, dated 13-10-1997, of learned Additional District Judge, Khushab, whereby the appeal filed by respondents against order, dated 12-6-1997, confirming temporary injunction till the decision of the suit, was set aside and temporary injunction was vacated.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is owner of land in Chak No,13/MB, which is irrigated from 44800-R Moga. He has also raised dispute in regard to Mogas Nos.44800 and 41800-R which relates to Chak No,14-MB. In the plaint, an apprehension was expressed, that the respondent's department was not entitled to shift mogas from its present side. In view of apprehension expressed, the learned trial Court granted interim relief, which was set aside in the appeal. Learned counsel for respondents has pointed out in so far as Mogas No,48000-R, pertaining to irrigation land of Chak No,13-MB is concerned, the same has already been settled under the order of Canal Authorities at its right place before the filing of suit and at present no representation is pending in regard thereto, and therefore, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is not well placed regarding two mogas. It is submitted, that the other Mogas, pertained to the irrigation in Chak No,14-MB where the petitioner does not own any land.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner does not controvert the fact, that the petitioner has no concern with Mogas No,44800-R, Chak No,14-MB and the petitioner does not own any land in Chak (sic) aggrieved by change of Moga No,44800-R, which pertains to Chak No,13-MB. The petitioner who is present in the Court has already admitted the shifting of Moga prior to suit, but he submitted, that in doing so, he has been caused, substantial loss, as his land is made "Banger" and is left within no water supply. In this view of the matter, it is evident, that the petitioner is seeking temporary injunction in a mandatory form for the purpose of creating new situation at site. Under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. An injunction can be granted to restrain the commission of, certain acts or for maintenance of status qua and no mandatory injunction in temporary form can be granted either under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. Or under section 151, C.P.C. However, mandatory injunction can be granted in exceptional circumstances, for saving life, but that can be granted to restore the status quo as on the date of filing of suit not before the same. In this view of the matter, proposed relief, claimed in the application, seeking revival of the position prior to suit could not be granted nor it was permissible at this stage.
This being so, the order of vacating temporary injunction passed by learned Additional District Judge, does not need any interference.
4. In view of apprehension of the petitioner, that the respondents may not delay the case to prolong agony of the petitioner,-it is directed, that the learned Civil Judge shall accelerate hearing of the case and by proceeding day to day he shall finally dispose of the suit within two months with 'intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court.
5. With these observations, this revision is dismissed.