IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.84 of 2010 Date of decision : November 29, 2010 Mohan Lal …Petitioner. Versus Balbir Singh and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Plaintiff-respondent Balbir Singh filed a suit, claiming that he had a right to irrigate his land bearing Khasra Nos.66 and 67, through water of three sources, existing on another piece of land and that the present petitioner and proforma-respondents, who were impleaded as defendants, had no right, title or interest in the said water and, hence, they were liable to be restrained by permanent prohibitory injunction, from utilizing the water to irrigate their land. 2. Suit was contested by the defendants. Trial Court, after framing issues and recording evidence, held that the identity of the site/land, on which the three water sources existed, had not been established. Trial Court observed that though evidence had been led to show that Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… water sources existed on Khasra No.133/109, no such description had been given in the plaint. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. 3. Appeal was filed by the plaintiff-respondent in the Court of District Judge. An application for amendment of the plaint was also moved to amend the plaint so as to describe the site, on which three water sources existed, by Khasra number, i.e. 133/109. That application has been allowed by the learned District Judge, vide order dated 7th December, 2009. It is this order of the learned District Judge, which has been challenged, by means of the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. Learned counsel, representing the petitioner, submits that the plaintiff-respondent is free to file a fresh suit, pleading that the water sources existed on Khasra No.133/109 and, therefore, learned District Judge was not justified in allowing the application, for amendment of plaint. Submission has been noticed only to be rejected. It is not that in the plaint, the plaintiff-respondent did not plead that he had three water sources, on a piece of land, and that the water of those three sources irrigated his land bearing Khasra Nos.66 and 67. However, he (the plaintiff- respondent) omitted to give description of the site, on which those three sources of water existed. Now, the plaintiff …3… wants to give description of that site, by a specific Khasra number. This will not cause any prejudice to the defendants nor will this change the cause of action or the nature of the suit. In view of the abovestated position, present petition is dismissed. Pending application, if any, stand disposed of, having become infructuous. November 29, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J