Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 399 (RAJ)

Sukhjeet Singh S/o Hardeep Singh v. Mahendrapal Singh S/o Gurkanwar Singh

2016-03-10

VINEET KOTHARI

body2016
ORDER : Vineet Kothari, J. The present Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the petitioners-objectors, in a suit for permanent injunction, against the impugned order dated 23.04.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikaranpur (District Sriganganagar) in Execution Civil Case No. 06 of 2009 “ Mahendrapal Singh v. Executive Engineer and ors.” by which, the learned Executing Court below, while allowing the execution application filed under Order 21, Rule 11 CPC filed by the plaintiff-Mahendrapal Singh, had directed the respondents-Irrigation Authorities to provide the double turn of water supply as per the drip system for irrigating the garden of the applicant-decree -holder situated at Chak 14 F F, Muraba No. 5 admeasuring 12 bighas 12 biswas of land. 2. 2. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 23.04.2012 is quoted herein below for ready reference:- 3- cgl izkFkZuk i= mHk; i{k lquh xbZA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA jktLFkku ljdkj flapkbZ foHkkx ds ifji= dzekad ,Qå7@9 ekådå@flaå@1998 fnukad 16-10-1999 dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ us vius izkFkZuk i= esa ;g rF; vafdr fd;s gSa fd bl U;k;ky; ds }kjk ikfjr fMdzh fnukad 23-05-2002 dh ikyuk esa izkFkh@fMdzhnkj dh Hkwfe pd 14 ,Qå,Qå ds eqåuaå 5 dh dqy 12 ch?kk 12 fcLok Hkwfe esa yxs ckx dks ikuh fnyk;k tk;sA mlus U;k;ky; dh fMdzh dh ikyuk rFkk euuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds funsZ'k vuqlkj eq[; vfHk;ark flapkbZ foHkkx guqekux<+ ds le{k mlds ckx dks vfrfjDr ikuh miyC/k djkus ds fy, izkFkZuk i= fnukad 21-06-2002 dks izLrqr fd;k Fkk] ftl ij vkt rd dksbZ lquokbZ ugha gqbZ] tcfd ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds vfr'kh?kz ekeyk fuiVkus ds funsZ'k FksA ,d vU; ekeys djrkjflag cuke LVsV esa eq[; vfHk;ark }kjk ckr dks ikuh miyC/k djok fn;k gSA tcfd mlds i{k esa gqbZ fMdzh dh tkucw> dj ikyuk ugha dh tk jgh gSA mlus viuh Hkwfe esa fMXxh cuk yh gS rFkk fM~i flLVe yxk fn;k gS] tks pkyw gS] ftlls ckx dh flapkbZ dh tk jgh gSA izkFkhZ@fMdzhnkj }kjk vizkFkhZx.k@en;wuku ds fo:) bl U;k;ky; esa izLrqr flfoy okn la0 35@1987 vmuokuh egsUnzikyflag cuke vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;ark vkfn esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 23-05-2002 }kjk oknh ds okn dks fMdzh fd;k tkdj izfroknhx.k flapkbZ foHkkx dks oknh vizkFkhZx.k@en;wuku }kjk ekuuh; vij ftyk U;k;ky;] Jhdj.kiqj rFkk ekuuh; mDr U;k;ky;ksa }kjk bl U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; o fMdzh dks cgky j[kk x;k FkkA blds vfrfjDr vizkFkhZx.k@en~;wuku dh vksj ls izkFkhZ@fMdzhnkj ds izkFkZuk i= dk dksbZ tokc Hkh izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS u gh dksbZ dkj.k crk;k x;k gS ftlls ;g izekf.kr gksrk gks fd izkFkhZ@fMdzhnkj vius ckx ds fy;s vfrfjDr ikuh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gksA izkFkhZ@fMdzhnkj dh vksj ls nLrkostksa dh lwph ds lkFk layXu nLrkostksa ls Hkh ;g lkfcr gS fd vizkFkhZx.k@en;wuku ds }kjk vU; yksxksa dks Hkh ckx ds fy, vfrfjDr ikuh miyC/k djok;k gSA rks fQj izkFkhZ@fMdzhnkj ds ckx ds fy, vfrfjDr ikuh D;ksa miyC/k ugha djok;k tk jgk gS] bldk dksbZ ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k crkus esa vizkFkhZx.k@en;wuku vleFkZ jgs gSaA izkFkhZ@fMdzhnkj us vius izkFkZuk i= esa Li"V vadu fd;k gS fd mlds }kjk ekSds ij ckx dh Hkwfe esa ikuh dh fMXxh cuk yh xbZ gS rFkk fM~i flLVe yxk fn;k gS] tks pkyw gSA ftldk fdlh izdkj ls dksbZ [kaMu vizkFkhZx.k@en;wuku dh vksj ls ugha fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj mijksDr foospu ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ@fMdzhnkj dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g btjk; izkFkZuk i= fo:) vizkFkhZx.k@en;wuku Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ik;k tkrk gSA 4- vr% izkFkh egsUnzikyflag dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g btjk; izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr 21 fu;e 11 flåizålaå ,rn~}kjk Lohdkj fd;k tkdj vizkFkhZx.k@en;wuku laå 1 ;k 3 dks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd os izkFkhZ@fMdzhnkj dh Hkwfe pd 14 ,Qå,Qå ds eqåuaå 5 dh dqy 12 ch?kk 12 fcLok Hkwfe esa yxs ckx ds fy, fM~i flLVe ds vuqlkj nks xq.kk ikuh dh ckjh miyC/k djkosaA sd/- v'kksd dqekj Vkd flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ofj"B [k.M Jhdj.kiqj] ftyk&Jhxaxkuxj** 3. The learned counsel, Mr. B.S. Sandhu, appearing for the petitioners-objectors submitted that in fact, the suit (No. 35/1987 “Mahendrapal Singh v. Executive Engineer and ors.”) filed by the plaintiff-decree-holder was dismissed by the learned Court below on 23.05.2002 only with a liberty to the plaintiff to approach the Irrigation Authorities, who were to consider sympathetically his application for water supply to save the crop of the garden. The relevant portion of the said order/decree of the learned Trial Court is quoted herein below for ready reference:- **vkns'k okn oknh fo:) izfroknhx.k ckcr~ LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk e; [kpkZ bl funsZ'k ds lkFk [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS fd oknh vc fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k ds v/khu izfroknhx.k flapkbZ foHkkx ds le{k fookfnr Hkwfe ij yxs ckx ds laca/k esa iw.kZ fooj.k ;qDr izkFkZuk&i= is'k djsa ,oa ekSdk ij izfdz;k ds v/khu fdlh fof'k"V {ks= esa ckx ik;k tk;s rks ,sls ckx dks e`r gksus ls cpkus ds fy, lgkuqHkwfriwoZd fopkj dj ikuh dh miyC/krk ds vk/kkj ij ckx ds fy;s vfrfjDr ikuh miyC/k djok;saA rn~uqlkj fMdzh ipkZ fu;ekuqlkj rS;kj fd;k tkosA sd/- ,yåMhå fdjkMw flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ofj"B [k.M Jhdj.kiqj** 4. Thereafter, the application for such water supply in terms of the decree filed by plaintiff-Mahendrapal Singh was also dismissed by the Executive Engineer, Gang Nahar, North Division, Irrigation, Sriganganagar on 02.08.2003 with the following findings:- ^^5- orZeku esa izkFkhZ Jh egsUnzikyflag iq= xqjdaojflag tVfl[k dk izkFkZuk i= fnukad -7-2002 ij fopkj mijkUr fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd vfrfjDr ikuh miyC/k ugha gS] bl dkj.k ls mls pd 14 ,Qå,Qv ds oknh/khu jdck dks miyC/k ugha djok;k tk ldrkA vr% mijksDrkuqlkj izkFkhZ ,oa okn i= ds izfroknhx.k dks vkids dk;kZy; fjdkMZ ,oa bl fu.kZ; ls lwfpr fd;k tkosaA sd/- vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;ark xaxugj] mRrj&[k.M Jhxaxkuxj** 5. Despite this position of rejection of the application of the applicant-Mahendrapal Singh and thus compliance of the decree already made, this fact was ignored by the learned Executing Court below. The learned Court below also did not appreciate the aforesaid subsequent developments taking place in the present suit correctly, viz., that the same decree had been upheld upto this Court, when this Court had dismissed the S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 162/2003 “Mahendrapal Singh v. The Executive Engineer and ors.” on 13.08.2003 filed by the plaintiff. The learned Court below also did not appreciate the aforesaid subsequent developments taking place in the present suit correctly, viz., that the same decree had been upheld upto this Court, when this Court had dismissed the S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 162/2003 “Mahendrapal Singh v. The Executive Engineer and ors.” on 13.08.2003 filed by the plaintiff. The relevant portion of the order of this Court dated 13.08.2003 is also quoted herein below for ready reference:- “In these circumstances, I do not find that the appellant should have even preferred this appeal. The right of getting irrigation for horticulture was recognised by the decree of the trial court. Supply of water depends upon the availability of water and there cannot be a blanket decree that even if water is not available, still the respondent department is bound to supply water. It may be observed that since the availability of water depends upon the situation of that year in which water is sought, therefore, the appellant will be free to move application before the competent authorities and the authorities may decide the application expeditiously whenever the application is submitted in accordance with law so that due effect may be given to the decree passed by the civil court. In view of the above, there is no force in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. sd/- [Prakash Tatia], J.” 6. The learned counsel, Mr. B.S. Sandhu, appearing for the petitioners-objectors also submitted that in the present case, the objectors, i.e., the present petitioners, were not summoned by the learned Executing Court below and without taking on record and deciding their objections, the learned Executing Court had passed the impugned order directing such water supply beyond the terms of the decree itself. 7. The learned counsel, Mr. Hemant Jain, appearing for the respondent-applicant-Mahendrapal Singh was unable to support the impugned order dated 23.04.2012 passed by the learned Executing Court. 8. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order dated 23.04.2012 passed by the learned Executing Court is not sustainable and the learned Executing Court, while passing the impugned order on 23.04.2012, has ignored the material facts placed on record in the matter, including the rejection of the suit itself upto this Court and the subsequent orders passed by the Irrigation Authorities. In these circumstances, this Court is clearly of the opinion that the impugned order dated 23.04.2012 cannot be sustained and the present revision filed by the petitioners-objectors deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 23.04.2012 deserves to be set aside. 9. Accordingly and in view of the above, the present Revision Petition filed on behalf of the petitioners-objectors Sukhjeet Singh S/o Hardeep Singh and ors. is allowed; and the impugned order dated 23.04.2014 passed by the learned Executing Court is set aside. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned and to the parties forthwith.