Back
PANKAJ JAIN
Surender – Appellant
Versus
Divisional Canal Officer, Rohtak – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Pankaj Jain, J.
1. Present revision petition is directed against order dated 3rd of May, 2024 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak whereby application filed by the defendants under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, stands dismissed.
2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. the petitioners as the defendants and respondent No. 2 as the plaintiff.
3. Respondent/plaintiff filed suit seeking declaration to the effect that order passed by Divisional Canal Officer, Rohtak Water Services Division, Rohtak, dated 7th of March, 2017 sanctioning water course AB be declared illegal, null, and void. Further prayer was for decree in form of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from digging the water course.
4. Defendants filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC claiming that in terms of Section 25 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain or decide any question relating to matters falling under Section 17 to 24 of the Act and, thus, the jurisdiction of the Civil Co
Civil Courts lack jurisdiction to entertain matters under Sections 17 to 24 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974, as per Section 25, unless there is a violation of natural justice.
(1) Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.(2) Issue relating to a common drain between two ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the existence of a water course by means of prescription and sanctioned warabandi under the Haryana Canal and Drainage ....
The Superintending Canal Officer's order modifying restoration of a water course was deemed arbitrary and illegal, reaffirming the petitioner's rights under Section 24(1) of the Haryana Canal and Dra....
Fields of parties has been continuing for last 32 years, and thus, after lapse of such a long period, petitioner cannot raise any objection.
Civil Courts cannot entertain suits challenging notices of unauthorized construction unless a clear case of nullity is demonstrated, as per statutory provisions under Section 433A of the Maharashtra ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
