Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE Appellant/Defendant No. 4, Thakar Singh S/o. Sh. Nidhan Singh, has preferred this second appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Sangaria, allowing the plaintiffs appeal being Civil Appeal No. 1/2005 -Madanlal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reversing the judgment and decree of learned trial court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sangaria, whereby the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff assailing the order No. 1418 dated 14.03.2000 issued by the defendant No. 2. The lower appellate court while allowing the appellant/plaintiffs appeal gave a direction that the order passed by the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Department vide Order No. 1418 dated 14.03.2000 is illegal and the same shall not be given effect to; and as per earlier order No. 4543 dated 18.12.1999, the water supply may be given from Stone No. 122/152 to the appellant/plaintiff and the said order will not have any effect against Mr. Mahendra Singh, Sarpanch whose land is also situated on the same Chak and said Sarpanch, Mr. Mahendra Singh, will be entitled to proportionate water supply.
(2.) BEING aggrieved by this direction, the appellant/defendant No. 4, Thakar Singh, has filed the present second appeal, in which notices were issued to the respondents. Mr. S.M. Toshniwal, learned Addl. Govt. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Irrigation Department submitted that the water supply turns keeps on changing every year or so and, therefore new water supply turns have been fixed by the authorities of the Department. Thus, no such mandamus directions as have been issued by the teamed appellate court of Additional District Judge, Sangaria, could be so issued to have a permanent effect. The defendant, Thakar Singh, is also aggrieved by the said order.
(3.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, the following substantial question of law is framed for consideration by this Court: "Whether the lower appellate court below was justified in granting permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff/respondent on the basis of available evidence -;