HET RAM Vs. NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants and proforma respondents 2 to 4 are the defendants, whereas, respondent No.l is the plaintiff and they will be referred to as such in this judgment. The defendants, who are aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.3.200J passed by Additional District Judge, Shimla, whereby the appeal of the plaintiff and Cross Objections of the defendants were allowed and the decree and judgment dated ,29.11.1999 of Sub Judge 1st Class, Theog District Shimla was set aside and the case was remanded for fresh trial after affording an opportunity to the plaintiff to implead all the necessary parties in the suit.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the water supply from the water source situated adjacent to the boundary of khasra Nos.161 and 163 in Mauza Guri, Pargana Parvati, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla. As per the plaintiff, there exists a JHOUR in khasra No. 162, which is fed by five water sources situate nearby the boundary of khasra Nos. 161 and 163 wherefrom he has been drawing water since time immemorial. His complaint was that defendants 1 and 6 who own land in khasra No.269/J I and 161 adjacent to the land of the plaintiff tried to interfere with the supply of the water from sad sources to the land of the plaintiff which gave him cause of action to file the suit.

(3.) In their separate written statement defendants 1 to 6 contested the suit and raised preliminary objections, inter alia, that the suit is bad for non -joinder of necessary parties, as khasra No. 161 is owned and possessed by defendant No.6 along with Ramesh Kumar, Varinder Kumar, Miss Kanta Devi, Nisha Devi, Geeta Devi and Smt. Savitri Devi, who have not been impleaded as part defendants. It was also alleged that State of Himachal Pradesh is one of the necessary parties as khasra No. 163 is owned by it. Besides denying the claim of the plaintiff as alleged by him defendants 1 to 6 also preferred counter claim seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against the plaintiff restraining him from interfering in the land comprised in khasra No. 161 and converting the user of the water source situated in khasra No.269/11, which is exclusively used by them.