Honble YADAV, J.–The present appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 26.4.95 passed by learned Additional District Judge, No.1, Sri Ganganagar whereby he confirmed the judgment and decree dated 8.2.93 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sri Karanpur in Original Civil Suit No. 95 of 1989. (2). Narration of brief facts leading upto filing of the present appeal are nece-ssary to appreciate the question involved for consideration. (3). The plaintiff-appellant filed a Civil Suit for mandatory injunction in the court of learned Civil Judge, Sri Karanpur seeking a relief that her fruits bearing garden situated in Chak No. 4-X Square No. 12 (Old Square No.23), Killas No. 11, 12, 13, 16, to 25 total area 12 Bighas 10 Biswas of land be declared fruits bearinggarden as per Garden Rules. The respondents be directed by way of mandatory injunction to supply extra water for the above mentioned garden of the plaintiff-appellant. (4). It is clearly mentioned in paragraph 6 of the plaint that the plaintiff-appellant applied to the Chief Engineer Irrigation, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur underthe Rules governing the Supply of Canal Water for Fruit Gardens in the Gang Canal Water Area in the year 1970 upon which officials of the Irrigation Department made enquiries and recommendations under the said Rules. Plaintiffs grove is registered at serial No.6 in the grove property register maintained in the office of `H distributory of Gang Canal respondent No.4 for supply of additional water to her grove. (5). After service of summons, the respondent filed a detailed written statement admitting some of averments made in the plaint including the averments mde in paragraph 6 but denied to provide additional water for fruits bearing garden of the plaintiff- appellant as the Chief Engineer Irrigation had prohibited four times additional water to the agriculturist in future. (6). On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed the following issues:- 1. WHETHER fruits bearing garden of the plaintiff-appellant situated in Chak No.4-X Square No. 12 (Old Square No.23) total area 12 Bighas 10 Biswas of land falls within the definition of Sanctioned Garden as envisaged under the Garden Rules? 2. WHETHER there is surplus water available in H distributory of Gang Canal reserved for gardens? 3. WHETHER fruits bearing garden of the plaintiff-appellant situated in Chak No.4-X Square No. 12 (Old Square No.23) total area 12 Bighas 10 Biswas of land falls within the definition of Sanctioned Garden as envisaged under the Garden Rules? 2. WHETHER there is surplus water available in H distributory of Gang Canal reserved for gardens? 3. WHETHER if issues No. 1 and 2 are decided in affirmative in respect of Chak 4-X of old Square No. 23 corresponding to new Square No.12 then the plaintiff is entitled for four times additional water? (7). Learned trial court after analytical discussion of oral and documentary evi-dence on record adduced by both the parties decided issues No. 1 and 2 in affirmative in favour of the plaintiff-appellant but declined to decide issue No.3 treating it to be a technical one based on specialized knowledge of irrigation officials. The learned trial court decreed the suit partly on the basis of the findings recorded by it on issues No.1 and 2 and declined to decide issue No.3 after placingreliance on a decision rendered by the learned Single Judge of this court in Shiv Lal vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (1). (8). Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the defendant-respondents filed a civil appeal before the learned first appellate court and the plaintiff-appellant also filed a cross-appeal against refusal to de-cide issue No.3 treating it to be a technical one based on specialized knowledge of irrigation officials. (9). The learned first appellate court after hearing both the parties dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant-respondents as well as cross-appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant against issue No.3 and affirmed the judgment and decree passedby learned trial court. (10). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgments under appeal passed by both the courts below. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties examined the oral and documentary evidence on record of the case produced by both the parties. (11). (10). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgments under appeal passed by both the courts below. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties examined the oral and documentary evidence on record of the case produced by both the parties. (11). It is urged by learned counsel for the appellant Shri H.S.S. Kharlia that while deciding issue No.3, both the courts below have committed substantial error of law and procedure holding that issue No.3 is technical one, therefore, the learned civil courts have no jurisdiction to decide such issues regarding supply of additional water to the fruits bearing garden of the plaintiff-appellant under theRajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act 1954 and the Rules framed thereunder. (12). It is next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the findings of fact recorded by the learned trial court on issues No.1 and 2 and affirmed by the learned first appellate court there is still additional surplus water available in H Grove distributory Gang Canal for 76.06 Bighas as prove d by Ex.23,therefore, both the courts below failed to exercise their jurisdiction by not making a direction to the defendant-respondents to supply additional water to the fruits bearing garden of the plaintiff-appellant as per Garden/Orchard Rules 1945. (13). Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his argument invited my attention towards the application made by the plaintiff-appellant to the Chief Engi- neer Ex.2A, which was forwarded in original to the Superintending Engineer, Sri Ganganagar for report. He also invited my attention towards Ex.3, a enquiry report submitted by the Irrigation Officer after making site inspection on 18.2.74 wherein it is reported that owner of Chak No.4-X has fruits bearing garden. The site was reported to be very clean and neat and fruits bearing plants were found to be planted at proper spacing. Proper plantation of fruits bearing plants were found to exist in the aforesaid Chak. The conditions of plants were found to be very satisfactory. It is also reported by the Irrigation Department that owner of fruits bearinggarden is a small farmer so she required encouragement by sanctioning additional irrigation water to her garden. He also invited my attention towards another report Ex. 4A given by another irrigation official to the aforesaid effect. (14). Learned counsel Mr. It is also reported by the Irrigation Department that owner of fruits bearinggarden is a small farmer so she required encouragement by sanctioning additional irrigation water to her garden. He also invited my attention towards another report Ex. 4A given by another irrigation official to the aforesaid effect. (14). Learned counsel Mr. B.C. Bhansali, appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4, on the other hand, supported the judgments under appeal given by boththe courts below. He placed reliance on a decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Shiv Lal (supra) and another decision rendered by a Division Bench of this court in Jarnel Singh and another vs. State of Rajasthan and others, (2) and another decision rendered by another learned Single Judge of this court in case of Rajendra Mada and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others, (3). (15). The basic question which this court is called upon to decide would be whether on the basis of the findings recorded by both the courts-below on issues No.1 and 2 the courts below ought to have decreed the suit in toto instead of decreeing it partly. I am of the view that answer to the aforesaid question would depend upon the jurisdiction of the civil court under the Rajasthan Irrigation andDrainage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1954) and rules framed thereunder. (16). For deeper and better understanding of the controversy involved in the present case it is to be imbibed that a litigant having a grievance of a civil nature has independently of any statute, a right to institute a civil suit in a civil court unlessits cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. In this regard, the provisions of Section 52 of the Act of 1954 as well as Section 53 of the said Act are required to be critically examined. Section 52 of the Act of 1954 expressly provides that except where otherwise provided all claims against the State Government in respect of anything done under this Act may be tried by the Civil Courts but no such court shallin any case pass an order as to the supply of water to any crop sown growing at the time of such order. Sub-section (1) of Section 53 of the Act of 1954 further provides that whenever a difference arises between two or more persons in regard to their mutual rights or liabilities in respect of the use, construction or maintenance of a water-course, any such person may apply in writing to the Divisional Irrigation Offi-cer stating the matter in dispute and such officer shall thereupon give notice to the other persons interested that on a day to be named in such notice, he will proceed to enquire into the said matter and after such enquiry, he shall pass his order thereon unless he transfers the matter to the Collector who shall thereupon enquire into and pass his order on the said matter. Sub-section (2) of Section 53 of the saidAct further provides that such order shall be final as use or distribution of water for any crop sown growing at the time when such order is made and shall thereafter remain in force until set aside by the decree of a civil court. (17). I am of the opinion that a close scrutiny of Sections 52 and 53 of the Act of 1954 clearly reveal that jurisdiction of a civil court is neither expressly nor implie-dly barred under the Act of 1954 but these two sections made it clear that all the orders passed under the Act by Irrigation officials or Collectors are subject to the decree of the civil court except ad interim orders passed by them for protection of existing sown growing crops at the time when such orders are made. The State Legislature under the exception did not intend to oust the jurisdiction of civil court by protecting the ad interim orders passed by Irrigation officials or Collectors but it intends to protect the existing sown growing crops at the time when such orders are made mitigating scrutiny of civil courts relating to strict compliance of law by such statutory authorities in passing such orders. (18). Learned counsel for the defendant-respondents invited my attention to Rules 14 and 15 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules of 1955) and submitted that under these Rules, jurisdiction of the civil court is barred. I am of the view that the aforesaid Rules do not exclude jurisdiction of the civil court. (18). Learned counsel for the defendant-respondents invited my attention to Rules 14 and 15 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules of 1955) and submitted that under these Rules, jurisdiction of the civil court is barred. I am of the view that the aforesaid Rules do not exclude jurisdiction of the civil court. In fact, the aforesaid two Rules speak about contractfor water for other than irrigation purposes and charges for water used for other than irrigation purposes in the absence of a special contract whereas the controversy involved in the present case is not for supply of water other than irrigation purposes but the controversy between the parties is with regard to supply of additional water for irrigation purposes to fruits bearings garden under the Rulesof 1945. (19). From the aforesaid discussion, it is crystal clear that jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred either expressly or impliedly under the Act of 1954 or under the Rules 14 and 15 of the Rules of 1955 as held by the learned first appellate court. (20). It is well to remember that a provision of law ousting the jurisdiction ofthe civil court must be strictly construed. The question involved in the present case is purely of civil nature. The irrigation authorities under the Act of 1954 and the Rules framed thereunder are only special tribunals or authorities having jurisdiction over a limited nature of disputes between the parties specified under the aforesaid Act and Rules and their orders remain operative until set aside by a decree of a civilcourt. It is held that jurisdiction of the civil courts is not limited to any particular class of dispute. All disputes relating to civil nature are cognizable by the civil courts under Part VIII of the Act of 1954 as discussed in the preceding paras of this judgment. Any order passed by irrigation authorities under the Statutes are subject to a decree of a civil court, hence, after recording finding of fact on issues No.1 and2, both the couts-below have committed substantial error of law and procedure in not decreeing the suit in toto under the wrong notion of law that civil court has no jurisdiction to decide a dispute between the parties based on specialists knowledge. Learned trial court has illegally placed reliance on a decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Shiv Lal (supra) wherein it was heldthat High Court did not possess the specialists knowledge of the Irrigation Engineers so as to able to say as to in what particular manner or through which water-course should the water be supplied to lands of various cultivators. Learned trial court has wrongly applied the aforesaid decision in the present case. The facts of the case of Shiv Lal (supra) are not applicable to the facts of the present case forthe reasons discussed hereinbelow. (21). It is to be noticed that decision rendered in case of Shiv Lal (supra) by this Court was given in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where disputed questions of facts cannot be gone into whereas in a civil suit involving a dispute of civil nature, the civil courts areunder legal obligation to decide the respective claims of the parties based on disputed question of facts. In writ jurisdiction in a dispute based on specialists knowledge, the High Courts have discretion to grant a relief to an aggrieved party or refuse to grant such relief on the ground of alternative remedy of civil suit depending on the facts of each case whereas civil courts while deciding a disputeof civil nature based on specialists knowledge have no such discretion to refuse to give reliefs to a plaintiff either on the ground of alternative remedy or holding that the question is based on specialists knowledge. (22). It is true that opinions of the experts in the field of specialists knowledge are ordinarily accepted to be correct in absence of any allegation of mala fides. In the present case, it is evident from Ex.3, Ex.4 as well as from Ex.23 that fruits bearing garden of the plaintiff-appellant falls within the definition of ``Garden under the Rules of 1945 and surplus water is available, therefore, if all these experts opinions available on record are taken together then it becomes evident that additional supply of water is possible even according to experts opinions in the present case. In my considered opinion, both the courts-below have illegally shirked its responsibilities in declining to decide issue No.3 on superfluous ground holding that decision of this issue is based on specialists knowledge. (23). In my considered opinion, both the courts-below have illegally shirked its responsibilities in declining to decide issue No.3 on superfluous ground holding that decision of this issue is based on specialists knowledge. (23). Learned counsel for the defendant-respondents placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Jarnel Singh (supra) and another decision rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Rajendra Mada (supra) in their writ jurisdiction, therefore, the ratio of the aforesaid two decisions are also not attracted in the present case for the same reasons whichhave been discussed in the preceding paragraph of this judgment. The facts of the aforesaid two decisions are distingishable to the facts of the present case. (24). It is evidenced from the averments made in paragraph 3 of the written statement and from Ex.24 that the Chief Engineer Irrigation Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur who is competent authority while sanctioning supply of additional water toShri Balwant Singh wrote to his Sub-ordinate Authorities that grant of additional water to Shri Balwant Singh shall not form a precedent and in future no such sanction will be considered unless an agriculturist agrees to instal drip system in his garden and the norms for such extra supply with Tillu system have been approved by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. It is alsomade clear in his order dated 14.5.90 (Ex.24) that while sanction in future may be given in advance of installation of drip system but extra water shall be supplied only after it has been installed in the field. It is evident from perusal of paragraph 3 of the written statement that letter dated 14.5.90 (Ex.24) is the basis for denying additional water to the plaintiff-appellant. The department has misconstructed theaforesaid letter dated 14.5.90 (Ex.24) for denying additional water to the fruits bearing garden of the plaintiff-appellant. Learned courts below have ignored the averments made in paragraph 3 of the written statement as well as letter dated 14.5.90 (Ex.24) which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. However, it is made clear that jurisdiction conferred on the civil courts in chapter VIII under the Rajas-than Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 cannot be taken away by executive fiat of Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Ex.24). However, it is made clear that jurisdiction conferred on the civil courts in chapter VIII under the Rajas-than Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 cannot be taken away by executive fiat of Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Ex.24). If the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur can sanction for additional water to Shri Balwant Singh and water is being supplied to him after installation of drip system then the same benefit cannot be denied to the plaintiff-appellant especiallywhen the officials after making local inspection of fruits bearing garden of the plaintiff-appellant have recommended for additional supply of water. It is admitted by irrigation authorities vide Ex.23 on record that additional surplus water for 76.06 Bighas grove is available in `H grove distributory Gang Canal and both the courts-below have recorded concurrent findings of fact to this effect. (25). In the present case, in pursuant to the letter dated 14.5.90 (Ex.24), the Chief Engineer is directed to sanction additional water to the fruits bearing garden of the plaintiff- appellant in advance of installation of drip system by her although extra water would be supplied to her only after she has installed drip system in her disputed fruits bearing garden. (26). As a result of the afore-mentioned discussion, the present second appeal is allowed and the judgments of both the courts-below decreeing the suit partly is modified. The suit is decreed in toto with a direction to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur to sanction additional water to the plaintiff-appellant in advance of installation of drip system as it has been sanctioned to Shri Balwant Singh. However, it is made clear that extra water shall be supplied to the plaintiff- appellant only after she has installed drip system in her disputed fruits bearing garden.