RAJESH BALIA, J. - (1.) IN this second appeal, plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree passed by District Judge Shriganganagar dt. 10.4.1992 who dismissed the suit for permanent injunction by reversing the judgment and decree passed by Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class Sri Ganganagar dt. 5.10.1987
(2.) PLAINTIFF -appellant Larjitonadrajeet Singh filed a suit alleging that a Khatedar tenancy existed in favour of the plaintiff's grandfather Darbara Singh. Plaintiffs father died during the lifetime of Darbarasing and after the death of Darbarasingh he became Khatedar of land in dispute. The land in dispute is a garden for which additional water supply was sanctioned by the Irrigation Department since 1947. According to the plaintiff's allegation, about 2 1/2 years before filing the suit, respondent disconnected the supply of water to the plaintiffs garden. Principal ground on which the restoration of supply of water to the garden by grant of permanent injunction, was claimed was that the order of closure of water supply was passed without notice to the plaintiff. The defendants in their written statement claimed that notices Ex. 17 were issued to the plaintiff in the year 1976 before passing the order. Thereafter when the plaintiff did not appear inspite of service, water of supply was closed vide order Ex. 18 in 1976. Defendants also pleaded that the suit was barred by time in as much as the order of closing the water supply was passed in 1976 and the suit has been filed in 1982. The trial court found that notice was issued in the name of Darbarasingh and order was also passed in the name of Darbarasingh who had died long before Ex. 17 and Ex. 18 were issued. Both the notices as well as order being against a dead person were nullity notwithstanding the fact that they were served on plaintiff. The Court noticed that Ex. 18, the order passed in pursuance of Ex. 17, does not bear date of its making, nor does it show the date on which it was served on the plaintiff. There is no other evidence except the statement of plaintiff to show as to when water supply was actually stopped. According to plaintiff, water supply was stopped about 2 1/2 years before filing the suit. The trial court also came to the conclusion that since orders were passed against a dead person the cause of action of filing a suit arose when the water supply was actually stopped and since the only evidence available on record was that the water supply was stopped within 3 years before filing of the suit, the suit was held to be within time. On these findings suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the trial court in the following terms. .........[vernacular ommited text]...........
(3.) ON appeal, lower appellate court reversed both he findings, it held that because notices were served on the plaintiff, the fact that they were issued in the name of dead person is of little importance. also came to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to prove that water supply was stopped within three years of filing the suit. Hence the suit was barred by time. On these findings decree passed by the trial court was reversed and suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Hence this second appeal.;