' The petitioners had filed a suit for declaration that orders passed by D.C.O. And S.C.O. Respectively on 12-2-2002 and 24-5-2002 whereby a watercourse was sanctioned in the land of the petitioners, on the application of respondents Nos.4 to 6, are illegal, against facts and law and without notice.
Alongwith the plaint a stay application was also moved for issuance of temporary injunction till the final disposal of the suit that the impugned order may not be implemented.
2. The said application was opposed by the respondents and was accepted by the trial Court vide order dated 21-5-2003. Petitioners' appeal against that order was also dismissed by Additional District Judge, Khanewal on 22-9-2003.
3. The aforesaid orders of two Courts below are assailed in this civil revision on the grounds that--
(i) order passed by D.C.O. Which was confirmed by S.C.O. Were passed at the back of the petitioners and without notice to them;
(ii) both the Courts below ignored an important aspect that disputed watercourse could not have been legally sanctioned in the land belonging to the petitioners without their consent and without payment of compensation to them;
(iii) finding of the learned Appellate Court that watercourse in question already existed, was dismantled and was simply restored is against facts; and
(iv) both the Courts below failed to consider that in a previous suit, respondents Nos.4 to 6 had made a statement that they would not make the watercourse without consent of the petitioners.
4. Petitioners' counsel has been heard. Civil revision and its annexures perused.
5. It has been held by the Courts below that ex facie the orders were passed by the Canal Authorities after notice to the parties concerned; that no new watercourse was sanctioned in the land of the petitioners but an allegedly dismantled watercourse was restored; that the petitioners did not possess a prima facie case and that they were not likely to suffer irreparable loss.
6. Findings on question of law and fact recorded by Courts of competent jurisdiction, though erroneous cannot be interfered with in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction as said jurisdiction is directed against irregular exercise, non-exercise or illegal assumption of jurisdiction.
7. Learned trial Court had the jurisdiction to decide the stay application either way and the learned Additional District Judge was competent to decide the appeal against the order passed by the trial Court on stay application.
8. No jurisdictional infirmity in the impugned orders could be pointed out which are reasonable.
Revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.