KISHANLAL Vs. NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been directed against the order of learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Pratapgarh dated 18-4-95 by which he issued temporary injunctions against the petitioners in appeal No. 64/95 which was filed against the order of Munsif. Pratapgarh dated 3-12-93 in which the learned Munsif had dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the orders passed by learned trial Judge as well as appellate Judge.

(3.) Plaintiff Narayan has agricultural land in village Mawlana. There is a well in land bearing No. 47. He grows maize, chillies, onions, mustard, wheat, gram, garlic and opium etc. in the fields. There is a way out of abadi of the village which leads to his fields and well. He has been using the way since long. The way is on the higher pedestal while the fields are on the lower level. On the western side of the fields of the plaintiff there exist fields of defendants. There is a nala in Khasra No. 1 and 2. An anicut has been constructed by the State Government on this nala. Defendants take water from this anicut unauthorisedly and they have made a 'dhora' (kachi nali) leading to their fields. Water seeps from this kacha nala and damages the crop of the plaintiffs. When objected to by the plaintiff the defendants agreed that they would fix a pipe so that the water may not seep and may not damage the crop of the plaintiff. Before filing the suit the defendants started to dig another 'dhora' and carry water to their fields from the said anicut unauthorisedly which would definitely damage the crop of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs therefore filed a suit for permanent injunction and an application for temporary injunction was also filed.