- (1.) This revision has been filed against the order dated 27-8-98 passed by the first Appellate Court rejecting the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 2-9-97 passed by the trial Court rejecting the application for temporary injunction under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code").
(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner had been served with a show cause notice dated 7-3-97 that on 25-1-97 he was found irrigating his field surreptitiously by fitting the pipe in the canal and thereby committed the theft and, thus, why he should not be proceeded in accordance with law. Petitioner filed a suit restraining the respondents to pass any order against him under the law and in the said suit, the application for temporary injunction was filed, which was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 2-9-97, against which he preferred a miscellaneous appeal which was dismissed on 27-8-98. Hence this revision.
(3.) Mr. R. K. Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that petitioner cannot be deprived of his legitimate right of getting the water even if he was found indulged in illegal activities/theft and the Courts below have wrongly rejected his application for temporary injunction.;