Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD . The only substantial question of law involved in this appeal is: Whether the Court below could have passed the decree merely on the ground that the defendant has not submitted written statement?
(2.) AT the request of learned Counsels for the parties, the appeal itself is heard finally. The plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction against the appellant as well as respondents No.2 to 5 Superintendent Engineer, CAD; Executive Engineer, CAD and Assistant Engineer, CAD of the Government Department of IGNP, Bikaner and the District Collector, Bikaner.
(3.) NONE of the defendants filed written statement and the trial Court closed the opportunity of defendants to file written statement by order dt. 14.04.1999. The trial Court merely on the basis of reason that since the defendants have not filed the written statement, decreed the suit under Order 8 R.10 CPC and granted the decree directing the defendants to change water supply as well as directed defendants to supply water on first come first get basis. Not only this, the trial Court also directed to reconstruct the canal.;