KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.---This Civil Revision Application is directed against judgment dated 08.02.2019, passed by the learned District Judge, Matiari, dismissing Civil Appeal Nb.20 of 2018. re: Syed Mir Muhammad Shah v. Province of Sindh and others, filed against order dated 05.03.2018, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Matiari, whereby he rejected the plaint of F.C. Suit No.13 of 2018 re: Syed Mir Muhammad Shah v. Province of Sindh and others , under Order VII, Rule XI of the Code of Civil Procedure [Act-V 1908] ["the code" ].
2. Briefly , the facts of the case are that the plaintif f ["the applicant"] alleged to have cultivated the land admeasuring 88-29 acres situated in. Deh Sattar and Bhorko, Taluka and District Matiari through a pipeline of four
(4) inches in dimension on water course No.RD-7, Pano Minor as per his due share in Irrigation Water. It is further case of the applicant that Government of Sindh while constructing Pakka Water Course No.RD-7 removed the aforesaid pipeline and after its construction despite the applicant approaches the official respondents are not allowing him to reinstall the pipeline, hence he filed the subject suit with following prayers: a. To pass decree thereby declare that the plaintif f is Irrigating the suit land from pipeline installed on Water Course No. RD-7 which was sanctioned by the Irrigation Department. b. To declare further that the act of defendants for not reinstalling the pipeline over water course No.RD-7 of Pano Minor , which has been removed for construction of Metal Water Course, is illegal, unlawful and ultra-vires, as such, is void.
To pass decree of mandatory injunctio n thereby directing the defendants to install the pipeline on Water Course No. RD-7 of Pano Minor for irrigating the suit land of plaintif f. d. To pass award the costs of the suit to plaintif f e. To ward and other relief which this Hon 'ble Court deems fit and proper .
3. The learned Trial Court after hearing the parties' counsel on the question of maintainability of the suit rejected the plaint under the provisions of Order VII, Rule XI of the Code vide order dated 05.03.2018, which was appealed against in Civil Appeal No.20 of 2018, that was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Matiari vide impugned judgment dated 05.02.2019, hence this revision application.
4. It is, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that earlier the applicant was irrigating his land through pipes installed on water course No.RD-7, which was removed by the Irrigation Authorities while constructing Paka Water Courses; that Irrigation Authorities are now not allowing the applicant to install the pipes in the aforesaid water course after its Pakka construction; and, that the learned Trial Court while rejecting the plaint of his suit and the learned Appellate Court while dismissing his appeal have not considered such aspects of the case.
The learned counsel for the applicant prays that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below may be set-aside and the case may be remitted back to the learned Trial Court for decision afresh on merits.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the material placed on record.
6. From a perusal of the record it would be seen that the applicant claims to have irrigated the land through four
(4) inches pipe installed in water course No.RD-7, and while Pakka construction of the alleged water course No.RD-7, the Irrigation Authorities had removed his pipeline and after its Pakka construction he is not being allowed to install pipeline in the alleged Pakka water course No.RD-7. On a query , the learned counsel for the application has stated that the pipeline can only be installed by breaking and damaging some portion of the Pakka construction of the water course; that there is no working share list of the alleged water course No.RD-7: and, that the applicant has approached the Irrigation Authorities by moving applications but the Irrigation Authorities have not passed any order on the said applications. The applicant has not filed any document to show the existence of water course No.RD-7. In such view of the matte r, patently there is no existence of the alleged water course No.RD-7 and the applicant has no vested right or legal character for seeking declaration in terms of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. And, thus the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the plaint of the subject suit of the applicant vide order dated 05.03.2018 invoking the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code, and the learned Appellate Court by dismissing his appeal filed against such order has not committed any illegality . The learned Advocate for the applicant has also not been able to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgment and order , passed by the learned Courts below , attracting ,exercise of jurisdiction under the provisions of section 115 of the Code, therefore, this Civil Revision Application having no substance is liable to be dismissed. These are the reasons of short order announced by me on 02.05.2019, whereby this revision application was dismissed.