JAGBIR SINGH Vs. BALBIR SINGH & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Rohtak, dated 15th June, 1990, whereby the order of the trial Court declining ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff was maintained.

(2.) The plaintiff moved an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code, in the trial Court along with the suit alleging that he was the owner in possession of the agricultural land and the defendants had no right to dig any new watercourse through the agricultural land of the plaintiff forcibly and illegally and, therefore, they be restrained to dig a new watercourse through the land of the plaintiff. The said application was contented on behalf of the defendants. The trial Court appointed a Local Commissioner in order to report about the existing position at the spot. The Local Commissioner reported that there existed a watercourse from point X to Y as shown in the site plan prepared by him. A photostat copy of the order passed by Sub-Divisional Canal Officer, Gohana, was also placed on the file, according to which, the plaintiff had been found as defaulter. He was imposed a penalty of Rs. 200.00 and the defendants were allowed to get the watercourse restored on the expenses of the defaulter. Keeping in view this circumstance, the trial Court found that there was no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and hence the application was dismissed. In appeal the learned District Judge affirmed the said finding of the trial Court and thus maintained the order.

(3.) After going through the impugned order I do not find any justification for interference in revisional jurisdiction in the concurrent findings of the two courts below. The discretion exercised by the courts below could not be said to be arbitrary, in any manner. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed, but with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.