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.