' This revision petition is directed against the orders dated 28-5-1998 and 2-12-1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge, 1st Class, Bahawalnagar and the learned District Judge, Bahawalnagar, respectively.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Amir, etc., petitioners filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the orders dated 2-7-1997 and 26-9-1996 passed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 respectively regarding the Warabandi of Outlet No,3, Siraj Shah minor, Mauza Bala Arain, Tehsil and District Bahawalnagar were illegal, void, ineffective and against the rights of the petitioner/plaintiff and as such were liable to be set aside. Alongwith the suit an application for temporary injunction was also filed by the petitioners on the plea that they have a good arguable case and balance of convenience is in their favor and in case the impugned orders are acted upon, the same will result in an irreparable loss to the petitioners. It was prayed that a temporary injunction be issued that the orders dated 2-7-1997 and 26-9-1996 passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 regarding the Warabandi of Moga .No,3 of Siraj Shah minor, Mauza Bala Arain, Tehsil and District Bahawalnagar be not implemented during the pendency of the suit. The application was resisted. After hearing the arguments the learned Civil Judge, 1st Class, Bahawalnagar vide his order dated 28-5-1998 proceeded to dismiss the application for temporary injunction.
Aggrieved of the said order dated 28-5-1998 the petitioners filed an appeal in the Court of the learned District Judge, Bahawalnagar and which too was dismissed on 2-12-1998. Hence this revision petition.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. Apparently the impugned orders had been passed by the officers who were clothed with authority i,e, by respondents Nos.1 and 2. It cannot be argued that the said orders had been passed without any lawful authority. The Canal Authorities are stated to have issued notices to all the co- sharers of the outlet and an opportunity of being heard had been provided to them and suspending the operation of the impugned orders would in a way amount to setting aside the said orders. The Civil Court is competent to set aside the Warabandi as a result of the trial. But suspending the operation of the impugned orders till the final disposal of the suit would be without any lawful justification. Balance of convenience does not appear to be in favor of the petitioners nor they seem to have a good arguable case. Under the circumstances they would not suffer any irreparable loss in case the implementation of the impugned orders is not suspended till the final disposal of the suit. As such the learned trial Court had rightly dismissed the application for temporary injunction vide its order dated 28-5-1998 and the learned District. Judge, Bahawalnagar vide his order dated 2-12-1998 had correctly declined to do otherwise. The impugned orders of the learned Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity and as such there is no justification for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
5. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.