IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 518 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 10, 2009 Nachhattar Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This is an appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment dated 30.4.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge upholding the view of the Canal Authorities under the North India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). It has come on record that the appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant was eventually accepted and his request for release of water for a smaller Chuk (piece of land) was consolidated with a bigger Chuk, vide order dated 29.5.2006. On the ground that there was partition between brothers, Bhag Singh-respondent No. 5 filed an application for amendment of Barabandi. His prayer was initially declined and on appeal the request was accepted. Accordingly, the turn of the petitioner-appellant has been fixed prior to that of respondent No. 5. The appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant against that order was dismissed, which LPA No. 518 of 2009 resulted into filing of the writ petition, which has also been dismissed on 30.4.2009. Mr. J.S. Thind, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has raised the issue that the principles of res judicata would apply as the question with regard to Barabandi stood concluded in favour of the petitioner- appellant, vide order dated 29.5.2006, which could not be re-opened. According to the learned counsel, the orders passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the learned Single Judge suffers from patent legal infirmity. After hearing learned counsel, we are of the considered view that the proceedings under the Act are summary in nature and the principles of res judicata may not be attracted. All the same the fact remains that there was partition between respondent No. 5 and his brother and the subsequent application for amendment of barabandi was moved on that basis. Therefore, the principles would not apply as fresh cause of action had arisen. Therefore, the principles of res judicata may not be attracted as fresh cause had arisen between the parties. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) July 10, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 2