- (1.) The appellants-defendants are in Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, whereby, the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs seeking mandatory injunction for restoration of the water channel, has been decreed.
(2.) Mr. Sandeep Singh Deol, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the suit aforementioned was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that plaintiffs failed to establish the water channel. However, the lower Appellate Court rendered the findings by relying upon the jamabandies which show the nature of the land as Nehri. He further submits that the trial Court did not have the jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit as it was barred by provisions of Section 30(g) of the Northern India Canal Drainage Act 1973, thus, submits that following substantial questions of law arise for adjudication of the present appeal:- "1. Whether in the absence of the establishment of the water channel, jambandies could have been looked into for adjudication of the lis or not 2. Whether the civil Court had jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit in view of the provisions of Section 30(g) of Northern India Canal Drainage Act 1973 "
(3.) Respondents No.1 and 2 though have put in appearance through counsel till 10.11.2014 but from 05.02.2015 onwards there is no representation on their behalf and appeal is of 2012. Accordingly, I proceed to decide the same.;