( 2025:HHC:22196 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 32 of 2025. Decided on : 10 th July, 2025. Gulzari Lal ...Petitioner. Versus Alok Banga & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Shivangi, Advocate, vice Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). By way of instant petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Una in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 57 of 2024, whereby the order dated 07.11.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.2, Una in CMA No. 444/24/21 in Civil Suit No. 384 of 2021 has been affirmed. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in original Civil Suit No. 384 of 2021 pending on the files of learned Civil Judge, Court No.2, Una. The suit has been filed for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from throwing dirty domestic or household daily 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? used water of their abadi in the land of the plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that the abadi of the defendants is on a higher pedestal as compared to the house and land of the plaintiff. He has alleged that the defendants have not made any arrangements for drainage of the water and resultantly the same flows into the house and land of the plaintiff. 3. The defendants are contesting the suit by denying the contents of the suit. 4. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiff had also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”), for interim injunction. The application was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 07.11.2024. 5. The plaintiff filed an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Code assailing order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the learned trial Court. The appeal of the plaintiff has also been dismissed by the learned District Judge vide impugned order. Hence this petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. …2… ( 2025:HHC:22196 ) 7. Learned trial Court as also the learned District Judge have concurrently found that the Gram Panchayat of the area has constructed a drain for flowing of water from the house of the defendants but the plaintiff himself is not allowing the water to flow through the drain by creating obstructions. Record further reveals that a Local Commissioner was also appointed to visit the spot and his report has also been taken into consideration by the learned District Judge while making above noted observations. 8. In the aforesaid backdrop, both the learned Courts below have denied the prayer for interim injunction by holding that the plaintiff himself has not come to the Court with clean hands. The prima facie case was also not found to exist in his favour. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to controvert the aforesaid findings of fact. She contended that the drain gets blocked by itself which causes the water to flow into the property of the plaintiff. 10. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Panchayat has already constructed a drain. Since, there is …3… ( 2025:HHC:22196 ) nothing on record to discredit the findings recorded by both the learned Courts below, this Court finds no reason to interfere. 11. In result, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 10th July, 2025. (jai) …4… ( 2025:HHC:22196 )