TARA CHAND Vs. KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revisional Petition has been filed by the defendant against the order of Additional District Judge, Rohtak dated August 16, 1986 granting ad-interim injunction in favour of Kartar Singh and others plaintiffs.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that Sub-Division Canal Officer vide order, dated February 25, 1986 ordered restoration of a Khal shown as 'E.F.' in the plan annexed with the plaint. The matter went up before the Divisional Canal Officer, who affirmed the order of the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer, vide order, dated April 15, 1986. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from digging any khal in pursuance of the order of the Divisional Canal Officer on the ground that they were in possession of the land where the alleged khal is stated to have existed, that there did not exist any khal; and that no khal was sanctioned by any Authority or no khal was constructed on the basis of an agreement or that the defendant had acquired no right to pass the water in any khal by way of easement. They also made an application for granting ad interim injunction. The suit was as well as the application were contested by the defendant. The learned trial Court dismissed the application for grant of ad interim injunction. The plaintiffs went up in appeal before the Additional District Judge (II), Rohtak, who reversed the finding of the trial Court, accepted the appeal and granted ad interim injunction. The defendant has come up in Revision to this Court.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the khal existed at the spot for the last many years by which the petitioner was irrigating his land. He further submits that the watercourse was provided there by agreement between the parties and the Canal Authorities were justified in restoration of the same.