Civil Revision No. 4856 of 2008 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 4856 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.08.2009
Kahan Singh
....Petitioner
versus
Sadhu Singh
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present: - Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. H.R. Nohria, Advocate,
for the respondent.
***
VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
CM No. 17758-CII of 2008
Allowed. The applicant-petitioner is exempted from filing the
certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-7.
CR No. 4856 of 2008
This revision petition is directed against the order dated
12.12.2007, passed by the learned Executing Court, vide which the
Sarpanch was directed to make a drain, which was to be utilised by the
petitioner, so that the water coming out from the house of the petitioner
was to not pass to the drain on the other side of the street.
The petitioner has impugned the following order passed by the
learned Executing Court: –
Civil Revision No. 4856 of 2008 (O&M)
-2-
“Counsel for parties has submitted that drains has been
made good for the use and they had also shown the
photographs, which have been returned back to the
counsel. It has been submitted that there is no drain
connecting to the other side of the street for the outlet of
house of JD. The Sarpanch has given direction to make
drain, which is to be utilized by the JDs, so that the
water came out from the house of JD passes from the
drain on the other side of the street. Now compliance be
made on 20.12.07.”
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that
the impugned part of order, directing the Sarpanch to make a drain, is
contrary to the decree passed by this Court, therefore, not sustainable in
law.
In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted, that the plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction,
restraining the defendant/respondent from interfering in the flow of
water from his house to the other side of the drain passing in front of the
house of the defendant/respondent. The suit was decreed by the learned
trial Court. However, in appeal, the judgment and decree passed by the
learned trial Court was reversed and the suit filed by the plaintiff was
ordered to be dismissed.
The plaintiff filed regular second appeal in this Court, which
was dismissed by this Court on 23.8.2004.
The petitioner preferred review petition against the order. This
Court modified the order dated 23.8.2004 to the following effect: –
“In this view of the matter, the order dated 23.8.2004 is
modified to the extent that the Sarpanch of village
Dhangarh, District Sangrur, is directed to open both the
Civil Revision No. 4856 of 2008 (O&M)
-3-drains in the street in which the appellant and the
respondent reside and both the parties are directed to
drain out the water on their sides of the drain.”
The learned counsel for the petitioner, by making reference to
the impugned part of the order, reproduced above, vehemently contends
that there was no direction given by this Court, to the Sarpanch to make
out a new drain, therefore, the order passed by the learned Executing
Court cannot be sustained in law, as it is not possible for the learned
Executing Court to go behind the decree. The learned Executing Court
was supposed to implement the decree in letter and spirit, as ordered by
this Court.
On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by
the learned counsel for the petitioner. The reading of the operative part
of the order dated 14.7.2006 passed by this Court, shows that it was
made clear that both the parties are to drain out the water on their side of
the drain, meaning thereby that the plaintiff could not divert his water to
the other side of the drain, in which the water of the defendant was
flowing. In case, in order to achieve the order, the drain existing on one
side is required to be extended, the learned Executing Court could
always do it because by way of impugned order, the Court has only
implemented the order passed by this Court in letter and spirit.
No ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out.
Dismissed.
(Vinod K. Sharma)
Judge
August 24, 2009
R.S.