JUDGMENT Vyom Prakash, J.-—This revision petition is directed against the order, dated 5th June 1978, passed by the Additional District Judge, Mandi, by which the appeal of the petitioners was rejected and the order of the Additional Sub-Judge, Mandi, dated 22nd November, 1976, was affirmed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Kanshi Ram respondent filed a suit against the petitioners for permanent, prohibitory injunction restraining them from interfering with the supply of water to his orchard planted on the land, bearing khasra number 1267/688/i of Mahal Arthi (Mandal) Ilaqa, Tehsil Saddar, District Mandi. It was alleged by the plaintiff that he had planted fruit trees in the land mentioned above and that for the irrigation and upkeep of this orchard he has laid pipe-lines and has brought water from a water tank situate in khasra number 1216/681/1 and that this water tank has also been constructed by him. It is further alleged that he has been using water of this water tank through pipelines for the last about 7/8 years for irrigating and also drinking purposes. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendants are threatening to cause damage to the water tank and the pipe-lines laid by the plaintiff and as such he was compelled to file this suit so that the defendants may not interfere with his right of supply of water of the aforesaid water tank through pipe lines. The suit is being contested by the defendants petitioners on various pleas. 3. In this suit the plaintiff filed an application for issuance of a temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter called the Code). After hearing the parties and perusal of the record, the Additional Sub-Judge, Mandi, allowed this application of the plaintiff vide his order, dated 22nd November, 1976. The defendants feeling aggrieved filed an appeal in the court of the District Judge but the same was also rejected vide order, dated 5th June, 1978, by the Additional District Judge, Mandi. 4. Feeling aggrieved from the above said order, this revision petition has been filed in this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the orders of both the courts below. 5. 4. Feeling aggrieved from the above said order, this revision petition has been filed in this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the orders of both the courts below. 5. Shri M.L. Sharma learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the orders of the lower courts upon the application under Or 3er 39, Rules I and 2 of the Code are not based upon the correct appreciation of the principles governing the grant of refusal of the temporary injunctions, and that discretion exercised by both the courts is, prima facie, wrong. His main contention is that the tank is situate on the Government land and that all the persons/residents have a right of Bartan in the water of this tank and that the respondent who can only be deemed to be a trespasser, has no right to be utilise the whole of the water of the tank by carrying the same through the pipe-lines and cannot deprive the other residents, particularly the defendants-petitioners, from the use of the water of this tank. He further contended that the possession of the respondent over this tank will be deemed to be unlawful and a person who is in illegal possession should not be given relief of a temporary injunction till he proves his case definitely. Another contention raised by Mr. Sharma was that the plaintiff in his application has not specifically averred that he has got a prima facie case and for that reason the application for issuance of temporary injunction should not have been allowed. The third contention of Mr. Sharma was that it will be inequitable to deprive the defendants of the use of the water from the tank and that if the application for temporary injunction is allowed then his clients (the defendants) are likely to suffer irreparable loss. 6. On the contrary Shri L.S. Panta learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent contended that the plaintiff is admittedly the owner of khasra number 1267/688 and that an orchard consisting of more than 500 fruit trees has been planted by the plaintiff on this land. 6. On the contrary Shri L.S. Panta learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent contended that the plaintiff is admittedly the owner of khasra number 1267/688 and that an orchard consisting of more than 500 fruit trees has been planted by the plaintiff on this land. It was further contended that the source of irrigation for the orchard situate in the aforesaid khasra number 1267/688 is the water of the tank situate in khasra number 1216/688 and that the plaintiff had been using this water of the tank by means of pipe-lines for the last about 8 years uniterruptedly. It was further contended by him that the plaintiff has a prima facie good case and the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff and in maintaining status quo and that the non-issuance of the injunction was likely to cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff, 7. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the judgments of the courts below. It is not at all disputed that khasra number 1267/688 measuring 11-7-0 bighas is in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff and that an orchard has been planted by the plaintiff in this khasra number. It is also not disputed that the water of the tank situate in khasra number 1216/688 is taken through the pipelines to the lands of the plaintiff of khasra number 1267/688. The facts that the plaintiff is also one of the Bartandars in the village is also not disputed by the defendants-petitioners. If these facts are admitted then it is clear that the plaintiff being a Bartandar is prima facie entitled to some water from the tank situation in khasra number 1216/688 and, admittedly, the water of this tank is irrigating the plaintiffs khasra number through pipe lines. In view of this matter" the plaintiff has definitely a prima facie case for taking water from the tank and the plaintiff, in fact, has been utilising the water of the tank prior to the institution of this suit. 8. In view of this matter" the plaintiff has definitely a prima facie case for taking water from the tank and the plaintiff, in fact, has been utilising the water of the tank prior to the institution of this suit. 8. If the defendants-petitioners are allowed to damage the pipe-lines laid by the plaintiff or to damage the tank then in that case the plaintiff is likely to suffer some damages which may be irreparable and the balance of convenience is definitely in favour of keeping the state of thing intact till the final decision of the rights of the parties. Both the lower courts have discussed the basic principles in the light of which the temporary injunctions are issued and I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the lower courts whi:h are well reasoned. They have exercised discretion correctly. In view of this, the revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed with costs, assessed at Rs. 100. 9. Any observations made in this order shall have no bearing or effect on the merits of the case. Revision petition dismissed,