JUDGMENT S.N. Phukan, C.J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Mandi, dated 18-3-1995 passed in C.M.A. No. 32 of 1993. The present petition has been filed by the Defendants. 2. In the year 1991 the Respondents herein, filed a civil suit before the learned Sub-Judge, Sundernagar, which was registered as suit No. 65 of 1991. Thereafter, in June 1993, an application under Order 39, Rules l and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed before the learned trial Court, which was dismissed, but by the impugned order the learned lower appellate Court allowed the injunction and the present Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were restrained from dredging the silt from Balancing Reservoir at Sunder-nagar in a manner which may load to ingress of silt into the suit land or which may cause obstruction to the Kuhals (water channels) through which water from Suketi-Khad is channalised for irrigation of the suit land or which may render the water drawn for irrigation by the Plaintiffs-Appellants from Suketi Khad polluted with silt till the disposal of the suit. Against the said outer, the present petition has been filed. 3. A copy of the plaint is available at Annexure P-I. The suit was filed by ten persons against the Union of India, Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board and the Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board, (for short, B.B.M.B.), According to the Plaintiffs, the suit land is being irrigated since time immemorial from the waters of Rivulet Suketi Khad by its owners. The Defendants, namely, B.B.M.B. constructed a Dam at Pandoh, District Mandi, and diverted the water of River Beas through a tunnel from Pandoh in Baggi and an open channel from Baggi to Sundernagar and finally Anr. tunnel from Sundernagar to Slapper and thereafter carried the water of River Beas into the River Sutlej. The Defendants also constructed at Ropa-Sundernagar town a Balancing Reservoir at the tail end of the Baggi-Sundernagar Beas Sutlej Link Open Channel in order to clean the River Beas water to silt and sand. The said Balancing Reservoir is situated at the Head of Rivulet Suketi-Khad, which according to the Plaintiffs irrigates the suit land of the Plaintiffs. The Defendants also constructed at Ropa-Sundernagar town a Balancing Reservoir at the tail end of the Baggi-Sundernagar Beas Sutlej Link Open Channel in order to clean the River Beas water to silt and sand. The said Balancing Reservoir is situated at the Head of Rivulet Suketi-Khad, which according to the Plaintiffs irrigates the suit land of the Plaintiffs. It has also been pleaded that the water of River Beas pours down every day "lacks of tonnes of sand and silt" into the above Balancing Reservoir and the Defendants dredge out the accumulated sand and silt from the said Balancing Reservoir into the Rivulet Suketi Khad, which mixes with and flows down with the water of Rivulet Suketi Khad and settles down and accumulates into the suit land of the Plaintiffs. It has also been stated in the plaint that since 1978 the Defendants have started dredging out the silt and sand and caused pollution in Suketi Rivulet with sand and silt and made its water unfit for human or animal use and consumption and also unfit for irrigation. By this process, the Kuhals (Irrigation Channels) are being filled with sand and silt and destroyed the fertility of the suit land since 1978 due to accumulation of sand and silt in the suit land. It is admitted that in July 1988, the Plaintiffs were paid compensation. In the plaint, a decree has been prayed for restoration of the land of the Plaintiffs to its original state prior to 1978 ; perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from dredging out silt and sand into suketi Khad and also for a preliminary decree to ascertain the compensation due to damage caused to the crops of the Plaintiffs since 1979. 4. It is not necessary for the present purpose to refer the written statement and reference may be made to the facts stated in the present petition. It is stated that Beas Sutlej Link Project was construction for diversion of water of River Beas at Pandoh through a water conductor system so as to generate power at Dehar Power Plant located at Slapper and then at Bhakra The entire B.B.M.B. system comprising the Power Houses at Bhakra, Ganguwal and Kotla, Pong and Dehar, which is a part of the northern grid electricity system of the country and power from this project is received by the States of Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh. It is admitted that diverted water carries a lot of silt and hence to be flushed out partly through the silt ejector installed in the head reach of the Sundernagar Hydel Channel and partly by dredging with the help of a Dredger installed in the above Balancing Reservoir at Sundernagar. It is necessary to do so, so as to avoid excess flow of silt to the generating units thereby choking the entire system. The silt is thrown into Suketi Khad where it is passed through a channel known as cunnette which is maintained every year so that water with silt does not enter the villages located adjacent to Suketi Khad. It has also been stated that in order to protect the interests of the local population and mitigate the hardship the B.B.M.B. has taken the necessary steps, such as, Rs. 65 lacs out of Rs. 35 lacs already paid to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to compensate by sinking six numbers Tubewells for supply of natural water. Of course, the amount has not been utilized by the Public Health Department of the H.P. Government. B.B.M.B. is also agreeable to release the balance amount of Rs. 30 lacks as soon as the work commences for installation of Tubewells, supply of 1.5 cusecs water from Balancing Reservoir Sundernagar and about 3 cusecs water from Sundernagar Hydel Channel through siphons free of cost to the people of the areas on the left and right side of the Suketi Khad and B.B.M.B. has also approved supply of 20 cusecs (average) of water from Sundernagar Hydel Channel for irrigation purposes in the Balh Valley area ; Foot and road Bridges have been provided ; Kuhals are being cleared from time to time to give adequate quantity of irrigation water ; compensation for damage to the crops due to silt is being paid as per assessment made by the local administration and if any sand accumulates over the fields of any person, the same is got removed by deploying special labour by B.B.M.B. In addition to above, hospital facilities from B.S.L. Project Hospitals at Pandoh, Sundernagar and Slapper have been extended to the local population. It has also been stated that dredging operation at the Balancing Reservoir is the life line of the Project and if it is stopped and silt is allowed to be accumulated into the Reservoir, it shall enter in the Dehar Power House resulting in extensive damage to the turbines installed in the power house which shall lead to total dislocation of power generation and disruption of power supply to the Northern Grid of the country. It shall also lead to the loss of colossal magnitude of power generation to the nation and public at large. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. From the impugned order, it appears that the question of jurisdiction was also raised, vis-a-vis, provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. This point was decided while deciding this petition for injunction, which is not correct Of course, this point has not been raised in the written statement, but only in the petition under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure. Even then, the proper course should be to allow the Defendants to amend the written statement, frame an issue regarding maintainability and decide it finally, if necessary, by taking it up as a preliminary issue. Therefore, that portion of the impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to take the appropriate action, as stated above. 6. While deciding the prima facie case, the Court did not take into consideration the following facts, namely, (1) suit was filed in the year 1991, but the petition for injunction was filed only in the year 1993 ; (2) the Project was started in the year 1978 including dredging of silt and sand but the suit was filed only in the year 1991. That apart, there is a committee to assess compensation, if any damage is caused to crops and in fact compensation was paid in the year 1988 to the Plaintiffs-Respondents, though according to the Plaintiffs, it was not adequate. There is also a committee for assessing damages to the crops, if any and the said committee is still alive and functioning ; (3) The committee, as stated in the petition, inspected the area in the year 1993 and according to the said Joint inspection report there was no damage to the crops of the Plaintiffs. There is also a committee for assessing damages to the crops, if any and the said committee is still alive and functioning ; (3) The committee, as stated in the petition, inspected the area in the year 1993 and according to the said Joint inspection report there was no damage to the crops of the Plaintiffs. Though learned lower appellate Court has recorded that it is a long process to get compensation, but on that ground it cannot be said that the Plaintiffs cannot get the compensation to the damages caused to the crops, if any. Learned lower appellate Court also recorded that the Respondents-Plaintiffs have right to protect their fields from being filled with silt and right to use the water of Suketi Khad for irrigation. The Court below did not consider the steps so far taken by the present Petitioners-B.B.M.B. to protect the interests of local population including removal of silt from the paddy land and providing funds to the Government for supply of drinking water by sinking Tubewells. Therefore, I hold that no prima facie case is made out by the Plaintiffs in view of the facts stated above, more particularly, the delay in coming to the Court and also the delay in filing the injunction petition after the filing of the suit. 7. Regarding irreparable loss, it may be noted that in the plaint itself, the Plaintiffs have claimed damages. In other words, if any damage has been caused, it can be compensated by money. Therefore, the Plaintiffs-Respondents have failed to make out a case for irreparable loss. 8. Regarding balance of convenience, it may be noted that the Project is in operation since 1978 and the Plaintiffs have approached this Court in 1991 by filing a suit and for injunction 1993. On the other hand, if injunction as issued by the learned lower appellate Court is allowed to stand, it will cause immense loss in terms of money to the B.B.M.B., inasmuch as, the silt may make the turbines immobile. That apart all the beneficiaries States will be deprived of electricity, which is of great public importance. 9. I may refer to the decision of the apex Court in Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke and Ors. v. The Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. JT 1995 (2) SC 504, wherein it has been, inter alia, held that public interest has to be kept in view in such matters. 9. I may refer to the decision of the apex Court in Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke and Ors. v. The Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. JT 1995 (2) SC 504, wherein it has been, inter alia, held that public interest has to be kept in view in such matters. If injunction is granted and damage is caused to the power houses, more particularly, to the turbines, the public at large will suffer. Therefore, on this ground also the Plaintiffs-Respondents cannot succeed. 10. One of the Respondents, who has appeared in person, has urged that dredging operation has not been done for the last 5 years and therefore if the injunction is granted, no harm will be cause to the Petitioners. I am unable to accept the contention of the Respondent as this is purely a technical matter. 11. It has also been urged that if the process continues the entire area will become a desert but from the submissions made in the present petition and from records, I find that steps are being taken by the B.B.M.B. to remove the silt and sand from the paddy fields and also to award compensation and in addition the irrigation channels are being cleaned. Therefore, the contention cannot be accepted. 12. Regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court, in view of the provisions of the Act, learned Counsel has drawn the attention to the decision of the Supreme Court and also of the various High Courts, I do not want to express any opinion on this point, in view of what has been stated above. This point is kept open. 13. In the result, the present petition is accepted by setting aside the impugned order of the learned lower appellate Court and the order of the learned trial Court is restored. In other words, the Plaintiffs-Respondents shall not be entitled to get any injunction, as prayed for. Costs on the parties.