JUDGMENT Mr. H. S. Madaan, J. (Oral):- Plaintiffs – Richhpal Singh and Gurmukh Singh, had brought a suit against defendants Sultan Singh and his sons, Hans Raj, Bhim Sain and Ranjit, craving for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into and dismantling the watercourse of outlet RD-28835/R of Ellenabad Distributory, passing through khewat No. 2433, khatuni No. 3316 Rect. No.83, Killa No. 23 (0-9), Killa No. 24 (0-9), Killa No. 25 (0-9), situated at village Ellenabad, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa. 2. As per case of the plaintiffs, they alongwith their brother and father are owners in possession of the land comprised in khewat No. 2433, khatuni No. 3316, Rect. No. 83, 84, 85, and 86, situated at village Ellenabad. The plaintiffs are irrigating their land from watercourse from outlet RD-28835-R of Ellenabad Distributory. The said watercourse passes through the land comprised in khewat No. 2433, khatuni No.3316 Rect. No. 83, Killa No. 23, 24 and 25 and the same is constructed over total land measuring 27 marlas to the extent of 9 marlas of each killa numbers detailed above. This is so reflected in the revenue record even plaintiff No.2 Gurmukh Singh, is also irrigating fields in the similar manner. Tubewell of defendants as well as room for tube well are in existence on the spot and a transformer have also been installed for the tubewell. The defendants threatened to dismantle the watercourse to which they had no right. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs brought the suit in question. 3. On notice, the defendants appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the suit, locus standi of plaintiffs to bring the suit in question, the suit being bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; the plaintiffs being estopped by their act and conduct for bringing the suit etc. 4. On merits defendants contended that Richhpal Singhplaintiff No.1 is not owner of the land comprised in khasra No.83 ratherSurjit Kaur w/o Alvail Singh is owner of that land. 4. On merits defendants contended that Richhpal Singhplaintiff No.1 is not owner of the land comprised in khasra No.83 ratherSurjit Kaur w/o Alvail Singh is owner of that land. Plainiff No.2 Gurmukh Singh s/o Pirthi Singh is recorded as owner of land comprised in square No. 83, killa No. 10/2 (4-16), 11/1 (6-16), 12/1 (7-7) and defendants are owners in possession of land comprised in square No. 83, killa No. 23 to 25, alongwith other land; that there is no sanctioned watercourse in square No. 83, as the land comprised in square No.83 is owned and possessed by the defendants, to the extent of their respective shares and they are in exclusive possession of the same; that plaintiffs have got prepared some false revenue record in connivance with certain anti social elements, just to grab land of the defendants; that there is sanctioned watercourse of the land which is running and no watercourse is in existence in killa No. 23, 24 and 25 of square No.83, as claimed by the plaintiffs. The defendants craved for dismissal of the suit. 5. Plaintiffs filed replication controverting allegations in the written statement, whereas reiterating the submission made in the plaint. 6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs have got no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs are stopped to file the present suit by its own act and conduct? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have concealed and suppressed the true and material facts from the Hon’ble Court? OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 7. Whether the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under Section 25 of Haryana Canal & Drainage Act? OPD 8. Relief. 7. In order to prove their case, plaintiffs examined plaintiff No.1 Richhpal Singh as PW-1, Kulwant Singh Patwari as PW-2 and produced documentary evidence on record. Thereafter, evidence of the plaintiffs was closed. 8. On the other hand, the defendants examined defendant No.2 Hans Raj as DW-1, and after producing certain documents closed their evidence. 9. After hearing the arguments, the trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 20.2.2014 decreed the suit with costs. 10. Thereafter, evidence of the plaintiffs was closed. 8. On the other hand, the defendants examined defendant No.2 Hans Raj as DW-1, and after producing certain documents closed their evidence. 9. After hearing the arguments, the trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 20.2.2014 decreed the suit with costs. 10. The defendants felt aggrieved and brought an appeal to the Court of District Judge, Sirsa, the said appeal was assigned to Additional District Judge, Sirsa, who vide judgment dated 30.4.2015, dismissed the appeal, affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 11. Still feeling aggrieved, the defendants have knocked at the door of this Court, by way of filing the present regular second appeal, notice of which was given to the respondents-plaintiffs. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, besides going through the record. 13. The first and foremost argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants was that jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and try the suit is clearly barred in terms of Section 25 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). This objection was taken by the defendants before the Courts below and a specific issue in that regard was framed by the trial Court. However, both the courts below by wrong interpretation of law came to the conclusion that civil court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to few judgments in support of her contention. The first being Mangat and others vs. Tek Chand and others, 2002 (3) RCR (Civil) 496. Second being Bahadar and others vs. Partap and another, [2010(4) Law Herald (PH) 2726] : 2010 (4) PLR 735 , third being Sanwal Ram and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2014 (4) PLR 350 and fourth being Budh Ram vs. Executive Engineer and another, 2018 (3) PLR 310, all by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentsplaintiffs has referred to judgment Maghar Singh and another vs. Parsin Kaur and others, [2012(1) Law Herald (P&H) 80 : 2012(1) Land L.R. 450] : 2012 (1) PLR 644 , by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 16. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentsplaintiffs has referred to judgment Maghar Singh and another vs. Parsin Kaur and others, [2012(1) Law Herald (P&H) 80 : 2012(1) Land L.R. 450] : 2012 (1) PLR 644 , by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 16. After hearing the rival contentions and going through the law, I find that jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain and try such type of suit is clearly barred under Section 25 of the Act. For ready reference, the relevant Section is reproduced as under :- “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.” 17. A perusal of the judgment passed by the trial Court goes to show that it wrongly assumed jurisdiction in the matter. Section 24 of the Act deals with restoration of demolished or altered etc. waters. For ready reference, said Section is reproduced as under :- “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 damages 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 a 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 satisfaction 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.” 18. A look at this provision goes to show that it provides a full fledged procedure. If the watercourse is demolished, altered, enlarged or obstructed etc., the authorities under the Act, can pass appropriate order in that regard. In case of non-compliance of such orders, the person at fault can be penalised by way of imposition of fine, which could be recovered as arrears of land revenue. It cannot be said that no remedy is available to an aggrieved person under the Act. 19. In authority Mangat’s case (Supra) this aspect has been dealt in detail. The other authorities referred to by learned counsel for the appellants clearly state that jurisdiction of civil court in such type of matter is barred. 20. As regards, judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents, in view of the detailed position explained above, that does not help the respondents-plaintiffs much. 21. Therefore, the judgments passed by the Courts below are not sustainable, in as much as, they have assumed jurisdiction in the matter which does not vest in such courts and the remedy of the plaintiffs lie in approaching the authorities under the Act and as stated during the course of arguments, they had already done so. 22. Under the circumstances, the appeal is accepted. The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are set aside and suit filed by the plaintiffs stands dismissed.