JUDGMENT Mr. M.M.S. Bedi, J. (Oral):- The defendant- petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated March 28, 2009 dismissing the application of the defendant- petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC challenging the suit of the plaintiff – respondents being barred by statute i.e. under Section 30-A and 30-G and Section 68 (7) of the Northern Indian Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, for short ‘the 1873 Act’. 2. A perusal of the pleadings indicate that the plaintiff respondents have challenged the validity of order dated August 3, 1988 passed by Divisional Canal Officer, order dated September 29, 2003 passed by Deputy Collector (Irrigation) Division, Sangrur, order dated December 26,2005 passed by Divisional Canal Officer, Sangrur and order dated June 22, 2006 passed by Superintending Canal Officer, Patiala Circle, Patiala, mainly on the ground that without giving an opportunity or without issuing any notice the proceedings have been taken for shifting of the land of defendants No.5 to 7 in Burji No. 8825/T from Burji No. 4000/TR. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that in view of specific statutory bar, the civil Court will have no jurisdiction in view of Section 9 of CPC as the said jurisdiction is expressly and impliedly barred. He has referred to provisions of Section 30A of the 1873 Act which enables Divisional Canal Officer to prepare a draft scheme for the alteration, extension and alignment of any water course or realignment of any existing water course after publication of the scheme under Section 30-B and Section 30C of the 1873 Act. Section 30 G of the 1873 Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain and decide any relating to matters falling under Sections 30-A to 30 FF of the 1873 Act. The plaintiff respondents have not challenged the validity of the proceedings by the authorities under the 1873 Act on the ground of violation of rules of natural justice and for having not published the scheme in accordance with law. It will be debatable during the trial whether the statutory provisions have been complied with by the authorities under the 1873 Act. In case the trial Court arrives at a conclusion that the mandatory provisions of the statute have not been complied with, the suit of the plaintiff would be maintainable. It will be debatable during the trial whether the statutory provisions have been complied with by the authorities under the 1873 Act. In case the trial Court arrives at a conclusion that the mandatory provisions of the statute have not been complied with, the suit of the plaintiff would be maintainable. It will be premature at this stage to arrive at any conclusion as the question of jurisdiction will be a mixed question of law and fact. The trial Court has, rightly dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. No ground is made out for interference in the order passed by the trial Court. 4. Petition is dismissed. However, it is observed that nothing said in this order will prejudice the rights of the defendant- petitioners to challenge the jurisdiction of the civil Court on specific issue framed regarding civil Court jurisdiction. It will be appreciated in case the suit is decided expeditiously. --------------------