1. Plaint in the suit for annulment of an order dated 30-7-1984 by a Divisional Canal Officer, for restoration of a dismantled Khal, passed under section 68-A of Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, and for perpetual injunction for stopping its implementation was rejected, under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil P.C. Its decision was affirmed in appeal on similar grounds. A revision filed in this Court to challenge the correctness of these decisions was admitted to hearing, on 2-10-1985.
2. The trial Court took the view that the impugned order was in the nature of interim arrangement and was to be followed by a final order. Therefore, it could not be reviewed by the Civil Court and a suit for setting aside of it did not lie. Appellate Court agreed with it.
3. Section 68-A ibid is interwoven with section 68 of the Canal and Drainage Act. In default of pending dispute under section 68, exercise of jurisdiction by a Canal Authority under section 68-A of the Act was not warranted. This view has a clear support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Abdul Qayum and another v. Niaz Muhammad and another (1992 SCM R 613). Therefore, the plaint did not deserve its summary rejection on the grounds enumerated in the impugned orders. In my view, plaint disclosed triable issues and its unceremonious burial without a formal trial of the points taken in it was unwarranted. Upon this view of the matter, civil revision is allowed. Impugned judgments and decrees of lower Court are set aside for formal trial of the civil suit on merits in accordance with law by the trial Court. Needless to observe that the application for interim relief shall also be decided afresh on its merits. There shall be no order as to costs in this Court.
4. Parties shall appear before the trial Court on 27-2-1993. The trial shall be finalized within six months.
5. Until a different order was made by the trial Court on the application for temporary injunction,quo shall prevail.