MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.- Ch. Nazir Ahmad, Advocate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sh. Naveed Shahryar, Advocate, Learned counsel for the appellants requests for adjournment. I am not inclined to adjourn the case as it is pending since 1973.
2. The only question which requires consideration in this second appeal wits as to whether the Civil Court was vested with jurisdiction to entertain the suit and whether the penalty imposed on the appellants by the Divisional Canal Officer was justified under the law. The appellants were imposed penalty of an amount of Rs.2310/- for having irrigated their land unauthorisedly from unauthorised Nakka carved out by them in violation of law in Square No.119 on the middle line of killa Nos.2 and 3.
The order of Divisional Canal Officer dated 31.3.1969 for imposition of said Tawan was challenged in the suit from which this appeal has arisen on the ground that the said Nakka had been sanctioned by the Canal Authorities on 25.7.1967, therefore, it was not an unauthorised cultivation from the said Nakka. Both the Courts below held that the appellants were guilty of irrigating their land in unauthorised manner as they fixed pipe in the canal, for irrigation purpose. It was 'found that the regular proceedings were conducted against the appellants, as such, the order dated 31.3.1969 impugned in the suit did not suffer from any illegality, as Mich, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was ousted as it was the Canal -Authorities under the law who were competent to decide the said question.
3. During the argument before the lower appellate Court Malik Ghulam Sarwar, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants as observed by the said Court admitted that an appeal was filed against.The said order before the Divisional Commissioner which was rejected. This fact was not mentioned in the plaint which was deliberate concealment of a material fact. The said order of the Divisional Commissioner-had not been challenged in the suit. I have gone through the" statements of Yasin PW.I, Said Muhammad PW.2. Nabi Bakhsh PW.3 and Amin PW 4. The evidence of none of these witnesses is sufficient to rebut the evidence ot Haji Ghulam Rasool DW.I, Muzafar Mirza DW.2 and Abdul Hakeem DW.3. The proceedings were regularly taken by the Canal Authorities who held the power to inquire into the matter for imposition of Tawan and the same have not been shown to have suffered from any such illegality which, would adversely affect their jurisdiction to pass the impugned order under the law.
4. The two Courts below have not been shown to have committed any illegality inasmuch as no mis-reading, mis-construction or non-reading of any material piece of evidence has been made.
The appeal fails which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.