1 S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.337/2006. Daleep Kumar and others. vs. The State of Rajasthan and others. Date : 14.2.2007 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. N Trivedi, for the appellants. Mr. HR Soni, Addl.GA, for the respondents no.1 to 3 Mr. RK Soni for Mr.IR Choudhary, for respondent no.4. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction against the respondents – State authorities and sought relief of injunction against them from opening the new water course. The plaintiff PW1 in his cross examination admitted that he was party before the Superintending Engineer and he put his entire case before him. The plaintiffs lost their case before the appellate authority and thereafter, their further appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed suit for injunction. The suit was dismissed by the trial court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 20.8.2004 which was upheld by the appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 12.7.2006. 2 Learned counsel for the appellants tried to submit that the order passed by the Executive Engineer is wholly without jurisdiction and has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. It is also submitted that the courts below committed serious error of law in appreciating the facts of the case. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the facts of the case as well as the statement of plaintiff PW1 who himself admitted that he was party before the Superintending Engineer and put his case. Therefore, opportunity of hearing was afforded to the plaintiffs. The plaintiff PW1 himself admitted that he has no knowledge whether after the order, the Khala was constructed or not. The defendants stated that the water course was open but subsequently some of water course was closed by the plaintiffs. In the totality of the facts of case, pure question of fact has been decided by the two courts below that the order has been passed by the authority concerned after giving full opportunity to the appellants and thereafter, the appeals were dismissed. 3 After going through the impugned judgments and decrees of the two courts below, I do not find any substantial question of law being involved in this appeal. Consequently, this appeal, having no merit, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya