IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 254 of 2011 Decided on: 20.07.2011 Surjeet Singh …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 29.04.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) and upheld the order of the learned trial Court refusing to grant interim order in favour of the plaintiff. 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit claiming that they have the sole right to get water from the water source known as Munda Pani Nullah and further that the State of Himachal Pradesh has got no legal right to disturb the supply of the water from the said source and take water from this source and supply it to other villages. 3. Both the Courts below have come to a conclusion that at this stage no stay order can be passed in favour of the petitioner. There is also material on record to show that the plaintiffs themselves damaged the pipe line laid down by the State and, therefore, both the Courts below were right in holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any discretionary relief. 4. Without going into the merits of the case and in view of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below, I feel that no interference is called for in this petition. The petition is, therefore, rejected. It is further directed that since the suit relates to very important rights in water affecting a number of villagers, the learned trial Court shall make an endeavour to decide the suit itself at the earliest and in any manner not later than 31st July, 2012. 5. With these observations, the petition is rejected. No order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge July 20, 2011 (rajni)