PRITAM SINGH Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pritam Singh and Balwinder Singh filed suit for permanent injunction against Executive Engineer, Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Limited, Abohar and others restraining them from metaling their private water course which they have constructed on their own for irrigating their land. Along with the plaint, they made an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 CPC for the grant of temporary injunction restraining them from metaling the said water course. It was alleged in the plaint that they constructed one kucha water course on the watt in their fields for irrigating their fields and they irrigate their fields through this water course. Thus there is khal constructed by them for facilitating the irrigation of their land. This is not a water course sanctioned by the canal authorities. Defendants are going to brickline this water course. If they brickline this water course, that act would be unlawful, They do not have any right to brickline this water course.

(2.) Defendants contested this prayer. It was urged that after hearing by the concerned authorities, they decided to metal this water course. Parties were heard under Sec. 30 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 on 18.6.1997 when it was ordered that this khal shall be metaled and if any body had any objection to the metaling of this khal, he could go in appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer, Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Limited within 30 days. It was also urged that the dispute was not cognizable by the civil court and the plaint was liable to be rejected.

(3.) Vide order dated 28.4.98, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guiderbaha rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC in view of his finding that matter was not cognizable by the civil court. In consequence, order directing the maintenance of status quo was vacated.