In CR No. 1761 of 2021 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- Objection raised by revisionists that jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 is misconceived; Section 24 deals with restoration of demolished or altered water courses: P&H HC
Justice H.S. Madaan [06-12-2022]

Read Order: Amrender Singh and Others v. Gurjant Singh and Another

Monika Rahar 

Chandigarh, December 7,2022: While dealing with a revision petition, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that the objection raised by the revisionists to the effect that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (Act 1974) was misconceived and if the various provisions of the Act, 1974, are perused closely, it comes out that Section 24 of the Act 1974 deals with the restoration of demolished or altered etc. water courses.

While making a reference to a decision of the High Court itself, the Bench of Justice H.S. Madaan observed, 

“This judgement finds application to the facts of the present case and it cannot be said that the plaint deserves to be rejected since jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and try the suit is barred under Section 25 of the Act, 1974. the case of the revisionist does not fall within the four corners of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and there was no occasion to reject the plaint”. 

In nutshell, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for the grant of permanent injunction seeking a restraining order against the defendants from causing any hurdle/obstacle in using the watercourse existing in the joint land situated within the revenue estate of Village Surtia, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa and further restraining them from damaging/dismantling the watercourse in any manner or from changing the nature of watercourse in any way.

In response, the defendants sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit in view of Section 25 of the Act 1974, thus, the suit was barred since an alternative efficacious remedy was available. Furthermore, the defendants claimed that there was no watercourse existed in the area comprised in question. 

The aforesaid application for rejection was opposed on behalf of the plaintiff stating that the instant case did not come within the purview of the Act, 1974, since the Canal Authorities had no power to pass a restraining order in a matter between the parties.

After hearing the arguments, the Trial Court dismissed the application leaving the defendants aggrieved, thus, they approached the Court by way of filing the present revision petition, praying that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court be set aside and the application for rejection of the plaint filed by him be accepted.

At the very outset, the Court observed that the instant suit was filed for the grant of permanent injunction and such type of relief can be granted by a civil suit only. As regards the objection raised by the revisionists on the aspect of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the Court held that if the various provisions of the Act, 1974, are pursued closely, it comes out that Section 24 of the Act, 1974 deals with the restoration of demolished or altered etc. water courses.

“Here, as per the case of the plaintiff, defendants have not actually demolished or altered the water course, rather they are threatening to do so and preventing the plaintiff from using the water course. The canal authorities have no power to issue an injunction order”, the Court observed. 

Further, the Court, while making reference to a decision of the Court itself, observed that it cannot be said that the plaint deserves to be rejected since the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and try the suit is barred under Section 25 of the Act, 1974. 

“The case of the revisionist does not fall within the four corners of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and there was no occasion to reject the plaint. The application filed by the revisionists-defendants seeking rejection of the plaint was rightly dismissed by the trial court vide impugned order”, the Court held. 

Accordingly, the present petition was dismissed.