R.S.A No. 514 of 2009 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M No.1390-C of 2009 and R.S.A No. 514 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : November 18, 2009 Ram Parsad, ...... Appellant (s) v. Jaswant Singh and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the appellant. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) C.M No.1390-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded, C.M is allowed and the delay of 40 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. R.S.A No.514 of 2009 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 for injunction restraining the appellant and respondents No.2 and 3 from using the tubewell of respondent No.1 for irrigating their land. The lower appellate Court has declared that the water of the R.S.A No. 514 of 2009 (O&M) ::2:: said well continues to be joint but the electric pump set thereon has been installed by respondent No.1, and further that the appellant should have also a right to instal his pumping equipment to draw water from that well. The following questions have been proposed :- “ (i) Whether the plaintiff can be held to be in exclusive possession of the land jointly held by the co-sharers including the plaintiff and the defendan in the absence of any partition by metes and bounds ? (ii) Whether the findings recorded by the Cours below are conrary to the pleadings as well as the evidence produced by the parties ? (iii) Whether the evidence produced by the parties have been misread by the Courts below ? (iv) Whether the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse ?” In view of the finding of the lower appellate Court regarding the right of the appellant to the water in the well till such time as the property is partitioned, the questions proposed do not arise. As clarified by the lower appellate Court, the appellant is at liberty to instal his own pumping equipment on the said well. Consequenly, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 18, 2009. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No. 514 of 2009 (O&M) ::3::