IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 90 of 2011 Date of decision: 28.3.2011 Kartar Singh ….Petitioner. Versus Daler Singh and others ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents: None. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order of the learned District Judge whereby he set-aside the order of the learned trial Court and allowed the application filed by the plaintiff and restrained the present petitioner (here-in- after referred to as the defendant) from laying a lintel on the well constructed by the present defendant on Shamlat land. 2. At this stage, I am not going into the merits of the case but even as per the pleadings of the parties the well has been constructed on Shamlat land. Assuming for the sake of arguments that defendant-petitioner constructed the well this does not entitle him to cover it with a lintel which will result in the well being used by him exclusively 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 to the exclusion of all others. The learned lower Appellate Court was right in holding that till the rights of the parties are decided the well should be continued to be used by the general public. 3. At this stage, Shri Ashok Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the defendant does not admit that the well is on the Shamlat land and according to him an application for correction has already been filed. Till that issue is decided, as on date the well is shown to be on Shamlat land and cannot be considered to be on the privately owned land by the defendant-petitioner. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. 28th March, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge