' This civil revision calls in question the order dated 25-3-76 of Additional District Judge, Jhang whereby the temporary injunction granted to the petitioners by the Senior Civil Judge, Jhang on 13- 8-75 was vacated.
2. By an order dated 20-8-74 the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer allowed respondent No, 1 to draw water from the outlet of the petitioners. The petitioners challenged this order before the Divisional Canal Officer but their appeal was rejected on 22-5-75. Upon this the petitioners instituted the suit which has given rise to this civil revision. In the suit they challenged the legality of the orders of the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer and the Divisional Canal Officer. Together with the suit they filed an application for a temporary injunction to the effect that pendente lite the operation of the orders of the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer and the Divisional Canal Officer be suspended.
3. According to the petitioners prior to order of the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were not drawing any water from their outlet. Thus, this was not a case relating to differences between two or more persons with regard to their mutual rights in a common watercourse within the contemplation of section 68 of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873. This being so, the Sub- Divisional Canal Officer had no jurisdiction to modify the existing warabandi in order to enable the said respondents to draw water from their outlet. It was also contended that the land held by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was obtained by them on lease from the Government and one of the conditions of the lease was that they would not be entitled to canal water.
4. The representatives of the Canal Department have appeared before me with the relevant record.
According to them the land held by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was included in the canal commanded area in as far back as 1953 and the users of this area continued to draw water from the same channel which the petitioners use till 1962. From 1962 to 1964 the land remained unallotted with the result that the water prescribed for it was distributed as a temporary measure among the other shares of the outlet. In 1964 the land was again leased out by the Provincial Government and the new lessees began to draw water prescribed for the area. In view of this position I do not think that prima facie the orders of the canal officers suffer from any lack of jurisdiction.
5. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that under the lease granted to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 they were not entitled to any canal water, also does not appear to be factually correct. The terms upon which the lease was granted have been read out. All that is stated therein is that the Government would not take responsibility for providing canal water to the lessee. This is not tantamount to saying that the canal water if already earmarked for the area would also be withdrawn.
6. There is another aspect of the case also. If the temporary injunction is not issued the petitioners' turn of water will be reduced only by 6 minutes, but in case one is issued the land of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 will go completely dry. Clearly the balance of convenience lies on the side of the said respondents.
7. For the reasons stated above I find that this is not a fit case for interference on the revisional side.
The civil revision is dismissed with costs. Before I conclude I may add that any observations made by me in this order should be regarded only of tentative nature and the trial Court ought not to be influenced by them while finally deciding the main suit.