JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.--- The petitioners/plaintiffs impugns the appellate order dated 16.12.1999, whereby an application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC has been dismissed.
2. The controversy in this case relates to a water channel . According to the petitioners/plaintiffs, the canal authorities have passed orders without notice to the petitioners. According to the Canal and Drainage Act, such notices are necessary.
3. It is for the foregoing reason that the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 27.11.1997, granted the temporary injunction sought by the petitioners. The Appellate Court, however, has reversed the finding of the learned Trial Court on the premise that the order passed by the DCO mentions that the petitioners had been served. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that this alone cannot constitute, prima facie, evidence of service, particularly in view of the fact that the departmental authorities did not file any document to establish service of the petitioners when they filed their written statement and their reply to the aforesaid application.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is legally well-founded. If, indeed, the petitioners had been served, it was incumbent on the canal authorities to bring on record the service , report and the part of the notice showing that the petitioners had been served.
5. In view of the foregoing, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned appellate order dated 16.12.1999 is set aside. As a consequence, the order of the learned Trial Court dated 27.11.1997 stands restored.
Civil Revision .