JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment & decree dated 21.01.2020 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Hanumangarh, whereby the judgment & decree dated 06.12.2019 passed by the Civil Judge, Hanumangarh has been reversed and the suit filed by the respondents herein, has been decreed and injunction has been granted. 2. The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in relation to order dated 08.03.2017 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Hanumangarh, whereby the appeal filed by the defendant Omprakash and others against the order dated 28.12.2016 passed by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division-I, Hanumangarh was accepted and the said order was set-aside. 3. By order dated 28.12.2016 (Annex.4), the Executive Engineer had accepted additional naka on an application filed by the plaintiffs. The appellate authority, by its order dated 08.03.2017 (Ex.3), set-aside the said order. 4. On behalf of the plaintiffs, the validity of the order was questioned on various grounds mainly justifying the order passed by the Executive Engineer. 5. The suit was resisted by the appellants on various grounds including the ground that the order, which was passed by the Executive Engineer, was based on the report given by Water Users Association B.K.38 and the plaintiff at the relevant time was President of the said association and therefore, a better standard was required to be taken into consideration before granting the additional naka. It was further indicated that though the case of the plaintiff was taken into consideration the fact that the defendants would be effected by the said granting of additional naka was not taken into consideration and therefore, the order was bad and was rightly set-aside by the appellant authority. 6. Based on the submissions made by the parties, the trial court framed five issues. 7. On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself was examined and 11 documents were exhibited. 8. On behalf of the defendant, two witnesses were examined and 06 documents were exhibited. 9. After hearing the parties, the trial court, essentially in view of the fact that the plaintiff at the relevant time was President of the Water Users Association and he did not disclose the said aspect while making the application, came to the conclusion that the appellate authority was justified in setting aside the order, the issues pertaining to the maintainability of the suit etc. were decided against the defendants as no evidence was led. 10. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs-respondents filed first appeal. 11. The first appellate court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the trial court was not justified in dismissing the suit only on account of the fact that the plaintiff was President of Water Users Association when the application was made and accepted by the authority and it relied on the reports given by Ziledar, Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer and their recommendations, which was produced as Exhibits-5 to 11 and also came to the conclusion that the appellate authority in a very cursory manner has accepted the appeal by order dated 08.03.2017 (Ex.-3) and as such, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. 12. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellate court was not justified in setting aside the judgment & decree passed by the trial court. 13. Submissions were made that from the material available on record, it is apparent that the fact of the plaintiff being President of Water Users Association was not indicated in the application and that the aspect of effect on the appellants in granting the additional naka was not taken into consideration while passing the order by the Executive Engineer and therefore, the appellate authority, Superintending Engineer was justified in setting aside the order. 14. It is submitted that the appellate court, has wrongly interfered in the judgment of the trial court, as such, the same give rise to substantial question of law. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment impugned. 16. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 17. A perusal of the judgment passed by the trial court indicates that the trial court, instead of sticking to the parameters with regard to examining of matter of present nature, wherein the order of a statutory authority was under scrutiny i.e. to examine as to whether the order was passed after following the due procedure, went on to examine the justification for passing of the impugned order, which exercise was apparently not justified. The trial court gave excessive importance to the fact that the plaintiff was President of the Water Users Association when the application was made and consequently, dismissed the challenge laid to the order dated 08.03.2017 without even discussing as to whether the order passed by the appellate authority was justified. 18. The first appellate court on scrutinizing the record, various reports produced by the authorities i.e. Ziledar, Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer, who had all concurrently indicated that for better irrigation facility, the grant of additional naka was justified, came to the conclusion that the appellate authority could not have passed the order on its cursory finding that as the plaintiffs were receiving water before grant of additional naka, they were not entitled for grant of additional naka. The finding recorded by the first appellate court is justified in the circumstances of the case, wherein merely because the plaintiff was President of Water Users Association at the time of making application by itself cannot be a reason to doubt the reports given by the Ziledar, Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer and thereafter, the Executive Engineer relying on the said reports had granted additional naka. 19. The appellate authority i.e. Superintending Engineer only on account of the fact that the plaintiffs were already receiving water has set-aside the order, which on its face could not have been sustained. 20. In view thereof, the judgment passed by the first appellate court does not give rise to any substantial question of law. There is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.