1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.247 of 2025 Date of Decision : 23.12.2025 Durga Singh (deceased) through LRs. …… Appellants Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1/State. None for remaining respondents. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The Appellant, by filing this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2025, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal No.25/2024, titled Durga Singh (deceased) through LRs. vs. State of HP and others, whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Suit No.39407/2013, have been affirmed 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter in this judgment, the parties shall be referred in the same manner in which they were referred before learned Trial Court. 3. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this second appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff is a permanent resident and estate right holder of village Nalag. The land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 107min/145, Khasra No. 682, measuring 03-10-11 bighas situated in muhal Nalag, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi is owned by the State of Himachal Pradesh and is recorded in possession of "TAVE HAKUK BARTAN DARAN MUTABIK NAKSHA BARTAN". A water source exists on this land. The land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No.49min/80, Khasra No.685, measuring 1-4-3 bighas is owned and possessed by respondent No.2-defendant No.2. It is the case of the appellant that respondent No.2, in connivance with subordinate revenue agencies, procured an order dated 21.11.1990 from the learned ADM (Collector), Mandi, conferring upon him a right to irrigate his land from the said water source, behind the back of the appellant and other estate right holders. 4. The revenue entry was made based on this order. In Civil Suit No.69 of 1999, decided on 02.06.2003, the Civil Court, while deciding issue No.3, held the said order dated 21.11.1990 to be wrong, illegal and void ab-initio. Relying on this finding, the appellant pursued the matter before the revenue authorities upto the Financial Commissioner and also filed CWP No.54 of 2007 before the Hon'ble High Court, seeking deletion of the entry, but his prayer was dismissed on the technical ground that a 3 mere finding on an issue could not bar the revenue authorities from giving effect to the order of the learned ADM. Left with no alternative, the appellant filed the present suit seeking a declaration that the revenue entry in favour of respondent No.2, based on the order dated 21.11.1990, is null and void, and for a consequential decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. 5. The defendants contested the suit. Defendant No.1-State raised objections regarding maintainability, cause of action and limitation. Defendant No.2 raised preliminary objections qua res judicata, limitation and contended that the suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, further stating that the finding on issue No.3 in the earlier suit was not binding as the suit itself was dismissed and no appeal was preferred against that judgment. 6. The learned trial court framed the following issues on 30.06.2022: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaring the revenue entries sowing the defendant No.2 having a right to irrigate his landed property null and void, as prayed?...OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction as a consequential relief, as prayed? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for non-maintainability in the present form, as alleged ?..OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation, as alleged?..OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable as res-judicata will operate in the present suit as alleged..OPD 6. Relief. 4 7. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the first appeal, contending that the trial court failed to appreciate that once the Civil Court had adjudged the order of the ADM as null and void, respondent No.2 had no legal right to be recorded in the revenue record based on that order. It was argued that the trial court erroneously applied the principles of Section 11 of the CPC (res judicata) and Order II Rule 2 of the CPC to bar the present suit, and that an order declared void by the Civil Court could not be given effect to in the revenue records. However, the first appellate court, upon consideration, dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present second appeal. 8. Heard Counsels for the parties, perused the impugned records. 9. The plaintiff’s core grievance is against the revenue entry made in favour of defendant No.2, based on the order dated 21.11.1990 of the learned ADM (Collector), Mandi. While the Civil Court in its judgment dated 12.06.2003 in Civil Suit No.69 of 1999, decided issue No.3 by holding the said ADM order to be null and void, it is crucial to note that the suit itself was dismissed. The operative part of that judgment expressly declined to grant the plaintiff the relief of a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants, including defendant No.2 in the present suit, from carrying water from the source in Khasra No.682 to their land in Khasra No.685. Furthermore, the Court in that suit categorically held that defendant No.1 therein (Munshi Ram, defendant No.2 herein), being a right holder of the muhal, had the right to irrigate his 5 land from the said source. This judgment attained finality as it was never challenged by the plaintiff. 10. The subsequent attempts by the plaintiff to have the revenue entry deleted solely on the strength of the finding on issue No.3 were repelled by the revenue authorities and ultimately by the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court, in its order, clearly held that the revenue authorities were not bound by such a finding in the absence of a decree, and that the plaintiff had not laid any substantive challenge to the defendant’s right to irrigation in a civil suit. Despite this, the present suit has been instituted seeking a declaration essentially on the same foundation that the finding on issue No.3 was without establishing an independent cause of action or demonstrating how the plaintiff’s rights are prejudiced. 11. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the case at hand is whether defendant No.2 has a right to irrigate his land in Khasra No.685 from the water source in Khasra No.682 was an issue in the previous suit and if the same was heard and finally decided against the plaintiff. The addition of the State as a party in the present suit does not alter this position, as the real controversy lies only between the plaintiff and defendant No.2. Consequently, the principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the CPC squarely applies to bar the present suit. Furthermore, the plaintiff having failed to seek all reliefs arising from the same cause of action in the earlier suit, the present suit is also barred by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. The plaintiff has also failed to 6 plead or prove any specific infringement of his rights that would warrant the grant of a permanent prohibitory injunction. 12. In view of the foregoing the suit was rightly dismissed by the learned trial court, and the first appellate court correctly affirmed the said dismissal. No grounds for interference are made out. 13. In view of the aforesaid, there arises no question of law, much less a substantial question of law for the consideration of the Court. Accordingly, the present appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) December 23, 2025 (KS) Judge