- (1.) THE present appeal of plaintiff Karam Singh is directed against the judgment and decree dtd.26.7.2008 passed by the learned Additional Dist. Judge, Sangaria in Civil Appeal decree No.3/2005 � Karam Singh V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. whereby the learned lower appellate court affirmed the judgment and decree dtd.21.5.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Sangaria in Civil Original Suit No.13/2002 � Karam Singh V/s State of Rajastha and ors. whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the reasons given by the courts below, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal of the plaintiff. The concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides a complete mechanism for hearing objections regarding opening of water course. The Superintending Engineer in the present case has dismissed the appeal as he held that Divisional Irrigation Officer was opening the water course through the land of the appellant as per the orders of the learned Dist. Collector under Section 26/27 of the said Act. The basic case set up by the learned counsel for the appellant � plaintiff before this Court is that his evidence was not completed before the learned Civil Court since his cross-examination was incomplete even though commenced on 28.8.2003, but in the meanwhile, an applciation under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 was filed, which was rejected only on 23.1.2004. Thereafter on 24.2.2004, even the plaintiff himself was present before the Court as P.W.1, but his counsel was out station on that day and therefore, the cross- examination could not be completed. On previous date on 18.8.2003, on account of illness of his counsel, who is said to be suffering from eye-flu, the cross-examination could not be completed. The learned counsel for the appellants therefore submitted the suit deserves to be restored to the learned Civil Court. This Court is not impressed with these submissions and in the opinion of this Court, it does not give rise to any substantial question of law. The appeal is therefore, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present appeal of plaintiff � Karam Singh is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, this Court is of the opinion that opportunity of hearing deserves to be given to the appellant � plaintiff by the learned Collector, who originally passed the order and against which instead of filing appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, the plaintiff availed the remedy by way of civil suit directly. Be that as it may, interest of justice would be subserved if the learned Dist. Collector, Sri Ganganagar is directed to once again consider the objections of the plaintiff � appellant which he may file within four weeks from today and pass appropriate speaking order on the same after hearing the concerned parties including the departmental officials. ;