JUDGMENT :

The plaintiff/respondent herein (For short “plaintiff”) instituted a suit bearing No. 69/10 of 2000, before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) (1) Shimla, H.P. In the afore suit, he claimed the making of a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against the instance of the defendant/petitioner herein (for short “defendant”), and, vis-a-vis, Khasra Nos. 1152/500, 1154/500, 1159/532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 539, 540, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547 and 537 kitas 14 total measuring 537.45 sq. meters for short (“the suit khasra numbers”).

2. The plaintiff’s suit became decreed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried thereagainst by the aggrieved defendant, before the learned first appellate Court, the latter Court made a verdict of dismissal, upon, the afore Civil Appeal No. 93-S/13 of 2004, and, obviously affirmed the judgment and decree as became accorded, vis-à-vis, the plaintiff hence by the learned trial Court, however, with a modification as becomes extracted hereinafter:-

“However, it is slightly modified, instead of granting injunction in respect to entire land of the defendant, it is hereby ordered that the defendant will not cause any obstruction to the flow o