2025:HHC:29754 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 472 of 2020 Decided on: 02.09.2025 Inder Singh and others … Petitioners Versus Sh. Narayan Singh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed order passed by the learned Appellate Authority dated 25.11.2020, in terms whereof, in an appeal preferred under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Appellate Court set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court in an application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully gone though the judgment passed by learned Appellate Court as well as the order passed by the learned Trial Court. 3. A perusal of the documents appended with the petition, including the order and judgment passed by the learned Courts 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:29754 below demonstrate that the suit filed by the present petitioners is for permanent prohibitory injunction, for restraining the defendants from diverting the water of the rivulet in issue, which according to the plaintiffs, is originating from the land of the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants. The ground which weighed with learned Appellate Court while setting aside the order passed by learned Trial Court was that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the land in issue where the construction of the tank and laying down of the water pipeline was being undertaken by the defendants, who were the contractors and had been awarded the said work by the Department concerned. 4. During the course of the arguments of this petition, the findings returned to this effect could not be demonstrated to be perverse or not borne from the record of the case. In fact, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit otherwise was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties because the State of Himachal Pradesh was not even arrayed as a party-defendant in the civil suit and the suit stood filed only against the contractors who were awarded the contract by the Department/State to construct a water tank and lay water pipeline to certain villages. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that liberty be granted to the petitioners to move an appropriate application for impleadment of the State as party-defendant in the suit. This Court is of the considered view that 3 2025:HHC:29754 in these proceedings, this Court has to see the legality of the judgment passed by learned Appellate Court and it is not for this Court to either grant such a permission or refuse the same. It is for the petitioners to file an application before the learned Trial Court which can thereafter obviously be decided by the learned Trial Court in terms of the contents thereof. 5. As far as these proceedings are concerned, this Court does not finds any perversity in the order passed by learned Appellate Court for the reason that learned Appellate Court in the light of there being no right vested in the petitioners to have the water from the source for their and proforma defendants’ exclusive use, rightly set aside the order passed by learned Trial Court. 6. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed without interfering with the judgment dated 25.11.2020, passed by learned Appellate Court but it is observed that any observation made by this Court in the course of adjudication of this petition shall have no bearing as far as adjudication of the civil suit on merit is concerned. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 02, 2025 (narender)