IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 238 of 2001. Date of Decision : 13.07.2011. Rokha Ram ….Appellant. Versus. Prem Singh ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?. No. For the appellant : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. This is the defendant’s appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Solan partly allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff claiming permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against the appellant herein, prohibiting and restraining him from obstructing the flow of rain water and used water of the bathroom and kitchen over the land of the defendant. 2. The learned Trial Court on the settled issues, had rightly held that no easementary right could be claimed for discharge of dirty water as such the right is neither contemplated nor recognized in law. The learned trial Court relied upon the decision in Jag Narian and Another vs. Ram Dularay and Another, AIR 1977 All 71 and Prabhu Narian Singh vs. Ram Naraian and Other, AIR 1983 All 223. This part of the judgment Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?. Yes. 2 cannot be faulted with and the principle finds recognition in the judgment of this Court in Kailash Chand and others vs. Guddi and others 1989(1) Sim.L.C. 96. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Addl. District Judge, recorded that the appellant-plaintiff had stated that he does not claim any easementary right for discharging dirty water from bathroom and kitchen and had made statement to this effect on 13.9.2000. He claimed only a right that the natural flow of rain water be not obstructed. The decree was partly reversed holding that the defendant would not obstruct the natural flow of rain water. 3. The defendant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. District Judge. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court is right in modifying the judgment and decree after coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the flow of dirty water of his kitchen and bath room towards the Sehan of the residential house of the appellant and simultaneously passing a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the appellant from obstructing the flow of rainy water?” 4. Adverting to this question, all that I need to say is that the natural flow of the water cannot be obstructed as that is how nature intended it to be. I do not find that the learned Addl. District Judge has committed an error either in law or in facts when he holds that the natural flow of rain water cannot be 3 obstructed/stopped. The case of the plaintiff was not that he wanted to discharge dirty/waste material/water etc. In these circumstances, I find that there is no question law much less substantial question of law which requires consideration. There is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. All pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. (Dev Darshan Sud), 13th July, 2011. Judge. (jai)