Judgment Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1. The plaintiffs are in second appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below whereby their suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed. 2. The plaintiffs have been non-suited by the learned Appellate Court on the ground that the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of Sections 24 and 25 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (herein after referred to as the Act). 3. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs are aggrieved against the order dated 06.7.2005 (Ex.P2) passed by Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Dhangar Water Services Division, Fatehabad, against which they had filed a statutory appeal before the Divisional Canal Officer, Dhangar Water Services Division, Fatehabad, which was dismissed on 26.5.2006 vide order (Ex.P4). 4. The question thus arises that if the plaintiffs had taken recourse to the remedy of appeal under Section 24 (4) of the Act, which provides that the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer in appeal shall be final and Section 25 of the Act, provides that the Civil Courts shall have no jurisdiction to entertain or decide any question relating to matters falling under Sections 17 to 24, still the suit could be filed before the Civil Court. 5. Before appreciating the aforesaid argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, the relevant provisions of the Act, need to be noticed, which are reproduced as under :- Sections 24 and 25 of the Act 24. Restoration of demolished or altered etc. watercourses : (1) If a person demolishes, alters, enlarges or obstructs a watercourse or a temporary watercourse or causes any damage thereto, any person affected thereby may apply to the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer for directing the restoration of the same to its original condition. (2) On receiving an application under sub-section (1) the Sub- Divisional Canal Officer may, after making such enquiry as he may deem fit, require, by notice in writing served on the person found to be responsible for so demolishing, altering, enlarging, obstructing or causing damage, to restore at his own cost, the watercourse or temporary watercourse to its original condition within such period not exceeding twenty-one days, as may be specified in the notice: Provided that in case of a temporary watercourse its restoration shall not be for a period exceeding one year. (3) If such person fails to the satisfation of the Sub- Divisional Canal Officer, to restore the watercourse or temporary watercourse to its original condition within the period specified in the notice served on him under sub-section (2) the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer may cause the watercourse or temporary watercourse to be restored to its original condition and recover the cost incurred in respect of such restoration from the defaulting person. The Sub-Divisional Canal Officer may order recovery of a sum not exceeding Rs. 500 from the defaulting person by way of penalty. Out of this sum so recovered the Sub- Divisional Canal Officer may order any amount to be paid to the aggrieved person for the damage caused to him. In case the penalty is not paid, the same shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. (4) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer, may prefer an appeal within fifteen days of the passing of such order to the Divisional Canal Officer, whose decision on such appeal shall be final. (5) Any sum which remains unpaid within a period to be specified for this purpose by the Divisional Canal Officer may be recovered as arrears of land revenue. 25. Bar of Jurisdiction of Civil Court: Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, no civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or decide any question relating to matters falling under sections 17 to 24. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record with his assistance. The facts of the case are not required to be recapitulated in detail as the same are already available on record of this case. The short controversy is, thus, about the maintainability of the suit before the Civil Court. In my opinion as the plaintiffs/appellants are aggrieved against the order Ex.P-2 against which the appeal had been filed which has been dismissed by order Ex.P-4 and the same has become final, the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction. As such, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine, though without any order as to costs.