AJMER SINGH Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner moved the Canal Authorities under the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act for restoration of the Khal alleged to have been disantled by the respondents. That application was allowed and the order of restoration confirmed even on appeal. Thereafter the respondents filed the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction An application for ad interim injunction was also moved to the effect that the petitioner be restrained from enforcing the order of the Canal Authorities. The trial Court dismissed the application but it was allowed on appeal by the learned Additional District Judge. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant has come up in this revision.

(2.) It is well settled law that execution of legal orders passed by the Authorities under any statute is not usually to be stayed because by enforcing that order the party is not committing any wrong. The learned Additional District Judge proceeded mainly on the ground that there was no sanctioned water course and the Canal authorities has no jurisdiction to order its restoration. This was a wholly wrong approach. Under the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act even a temporary water-course can be restored. The provisions of this Act, it appears, were not brought to the notice of the Additional District Judge. He, therefore, committed material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in reversing the order of the trial Court.

(3.) This petition is consequently allowed, the impugned order set aside and that of the trial Court restored but without any order as to costs.