Delhi District Court
Smt. Jashoda vs Secretary/Ceo on 23 September, 2013
In the Court of Civil Judge04 (South),
Saket Court Complex, New Delhi
Presided By : Ms. Ritu Singh
Suit No. 129/10
Unique Case I.D. No. 02406C0330912010
In the matter of :
Smt. Jashoda
W/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan
R/o H.No. 153, Gali no.3
Ambedkar Colony, Andheria More,
Chattarpur, Mehrauli,
New Delhi ...........Plaintiff
Versus
1. Secretary/CEO
Delhi Jal Board
Delhi Secretariat
New Delhi
2. Smt. Jagga
W/o Late Sh. Mahipal
R/o H.No. 152, Gali no.3
Ambedkar Colony, Andheria More,
Chattarpur, Mehrauli,
New Delhi ........Defendants
Date of Institution : 25.09.2009
Date of Reserving of Judgment : 23.09.2013
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 23.09.2013
Suit No. 129/2010 1/19 pages
J U D G M E N T:
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for passing a decree of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby restraining the defendants and their associates from stopping/diverting the course of water supply from the house of plaintiff, causing any interference, disturbance to the peaceful use of water supply from the public tube well by the plaintiff along with cost of the suit.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is earning her livelihood by doing ironing of clothes and residing at R/o H.No. 153, Gali no.3, Ambedkar Colony, Andheria More, Chattarpur, Mehrauli, New Delhi and that all the residents of locality are supplied drinking water through tube well and controlled by Delhi Jal Board and that local authorities i.e. Incharge, Delhi Jal Board office at Qutub Minar has deployed one lady named Smt. Jagga to control and operate the tube well in Ambedkar Colony who is illegally charging Rs.200/ to Rs. 300/ from each house owner, for supplying water and she also threatens them that whoever will oppose her illegal activities, she will make such families die for water. It is further averred that Smt. Jagga who belongs to influential and affluent strata of society has been harassing plaintiff to pay Rs.400/ per month for supplying the water which amount plaintiff is unable to pay as she belongs to weaker section of society for which plaintiff has made several complaints personally as well as in writing to PS Mehrauli on 23.8.09 and Delhi Jal Board Suit No. 129/2010 2/19 pages Engineer on 25.08.09. It is further averred that on 26.8.09 Smt. Jagga called three persons namely Sameer, Smt. Baby and Smt. Bimla all residing in the neighborhood and asked them to stop the water supply to the house of complainant on which said persons who came with a shovel and other digging implements started digging the line immediately and when plaintiff opposed the same she was abused and physically assaulted by them. It is further averred that the water line of tube well was dug and diverted in such a way that plaintiff will get water at the will of Smt. Jagga. It is further averred that seeing this quarrel, old father of plaintiff called the police and when police came, they also started abusing and scolding the plaintiff and at the instance of Smt. Jagga, police arrested two relatives namely Sonu Kumar and Pawan Kumar of plaintiff and raised Kalandara U/s. 107/151 Cr.P.C. against them and arrested them.
3. It is further averred that due to nonpayment of illegal demand of money, defendants have diverted the course of water line in such way that plaintiff can neither get water along with other neighbors nor supplied separately. As such plaintiff is denied water supply from the public tube well. It is further averred that plaintiff approached the local authorities as well as higher authorities for relief but no action has been taken against the defendants till date.
4. Defendant no.1 was served and contested the present suit by way of filing WS wherein defendant no.1 has taken preliminary objection that present suit is not maintainable as plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and plaintiff has not brought the complete facts before the court and has alleged Suit No. 129/2010 3/19 pages against defendant no.1 for the grievance which are against the defendant no.2 and that there is no cause of action against defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 has further stated in his WS that Delhi Jal Board had installed two tube wells at A Block, Ambedkar Colony, Andheria Modh for the water supply to the said block residents of the above mentioned unauthorised colony and that Delhi Jal Board has installed water hydrants on the water distribution line to facilitate the water supply to the residents of the area and that one the tube well has stopped functioning due to fall in water level hence and due to limited discharge from the other tube well, the water tap has been installed on the line for public distribution of water. It is denied by defendant no.1 that Delhi Jal Board has employed anyone in the name of Smt. Jagga to manage and maintain the water supply of the abovementioned tube well and further denied that plaintiff has been suffering for water due to nonsupply of water. It is stated by defendant no. 1 that plaintiff has no separate connection in her name and that Delhi Jal Board has already installed tap on the water distribution line for free and fair supply of water to all the residents.
5. Defendant no.2 was served and contested the present suit by way of filing WS wherein defendant no.2 has taken preliminary objection that present suit is not maintainable against the answering defendant no.2 because the defendant no.2 is having no concern with the Delhi Jal Board or its officials and has never deployed by the Delhi Jal Board on the Tubewell in question and that defendant no.2 is employed with MCD in office of Junior Engineer in War no. 107 (MIII) Suit No. 129/2010 4/19 pages South Zone and as a Coolie since 01.04.2006 and that he got this job on compassionate basis. In his parawise reply, defendant no.2 has denied that defendant no.2 was deployed on the tubewell in Ambedkar Colony, Chattarpur to control and operate the same and she is working in MCD and not in Delhi Jal Board and defendant no.2 further denied that she was illegally charging Rs. 200/ to Rs.300/ from each house owner for supplying water or sheused to threaten the persons who opposes her activities and defendant no.2 further denied that she has been harassing the plaintiff to pay Rs.400/ per month for supplying the water. Defendant no.2 further denied that on 26.8.09 defendant no.2 called three persons namely Sameer, Baby and Bimla and ask them to stop water supply to the house of plaintiff and when this was objected to by the plaintiff, plaintiff was abused and slapped by defendant no.2 and that defendant no.2 was not present on the spot on 26.8.2009 and that defendant no.2 is having any concern with the illegal demand of money from plaintiff or with the supply of water to the plaintiff. Defendant no.2 has further denied that defendant no.2 in connivance with the Jal Board Officials have intentionally and illegally diverted the course of water in such a way to deny the supply of water of public tubewell to the plaintiff and that she is having no concern with Delhi Jal Board nor with supply of water through its tubewell.
6. As none has appeared on behalf of defendant no. 2 on several dates after filing of WS, Ld. Predecessor of this court proceeded ex parte against defendant no.2 vide her order dated 29.03.2011.
Suit No. 129/2010 5/19 pages
7. Plaintiff has filed replication to the WS of the defendant no.1 wherein plaintiff has reiterated his stand taken in the plaint.
8. On the basis of pleadings made on behalf of parties, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, associates from diverting course of water supply from the house of the plaintiff and from causing any interference and disturbance to the peaceful supply of water from public tubewell? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other relief? OPP
9. Thereafter plaintiff evidence was led. Plaintiff Ms. Yashoda W/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan, R/o House No. 153, gali no. 3, Ambedkar Colony, Andheria More, Chatterpur, Mehrauli, New Delhi examined herself as PW1 who tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/X along with following documents:
1. Ex. PW 1/A which is copy of complaint dated 23.08.2009.
2. Ex. PW 1/B which is copy of complaint dated 25.08.2009
3. Ex. PW 1/C (Colly). consisting of 7 pages which are copies of Calendar under Section 107/151 along with statement.
4. Ex.PW1/D which is the photograph.
5. Mark PW1/E which is the photocopy of complaint to the SHO dated 29.08.2009. (Objected to on the mode of proof)
6. Ex.PW1/F which is the copy of complaint to the police dated 01.09.2009.
The originals of Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B were also being relied upon and Suit No. 129/2010 6/19 pages filed which were exhibited as Ex. PW1/A1 & Ex.PW1/B1.
10. PW1 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.1.
11. Plaintiff has further examined Sh. Mahavir s/o Sh. Arjun r/o 359, Village Mandi, New Delhi as PW2 who tendered his affidavit Ex.PW2/X.
12. PW2 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.1.
13. Plaintiff has further examined Sh. Javed Akhtar S/o Sh. Samsuddin r/o A70/212, Ambedkar Colony, Chattarpur, New Delhi as PW3 who tendered his affidavit Ex.PW3/X.
14. PW3 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.1.
15. Plaintiff evidence was closed vide separate statement of plaintiff/PW1 on 02.05.2012.
16. Thereafter, defendant evidence was led. Defendant no.1 examined Sh. Naresh Kumar C/o EE (E&M), W&S (S)III, Delhi Jal Board, New Delhi as DW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/X along with following documents:
1. Ex.DW1/1 copy of duty roaster
2. Mark DW1/2 copy of photographs
17. DW1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
18. Defendant no.1 has further examined Sh. Pradeep Kumar, JE (Civil) C/o EE (E&M), W&S (S)III, Delhi Jal Board, New Delhi as DW2 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW2/X along with following documents:
1. Ex.DW2/C a document dt. 31.1.2011 whereby unauthorised connection Suit No. 129/2010 7/19 pages was disconnected.
19. DW2 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
20. Defendant no.1 has further examined Sh. Kanwar Pal, Beldar, C/o EE (E&M), W&S (S)III, Delhi Jal Board, New Delhi as DW3 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW3/X along with following documents:
1. Ex.DW3/1 copy of duty roaster.
21. DW2 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
22. Defendant no.1's evidence was closed vide separate statement of counsel for the defendant no.1 on 20.03.2013.
23. Thereafter, final arguments were heard on behalf of both the parties.
24. Issue wise findings are as under:
ISSUE No.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, associates from diverting course of water supply from the house of the plaintiff and from causing any interference and disturbance to the peaceful supply of water from public tubewell? OPP
25. Onus to prove this issue was on plaintiff. Plaintiff has prayed for relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants and his agents from diverting the course of water supply from the house of plaintiff and further to restrain the defendants from causing any interference or disturbance in peaceful supply of water from public tube well.
Suit No. 129/2010 8/19 pages
26. Plaintiff has sought relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. According to Section 37 & 38 of Specific Relief Act, in order to seek relief of permanent injunction, plaintiff is required to establish her right or obligation in her favour and the fact of threat or infringement of the right by the defendant. Section 38 of Specific Relief Act reads as under:
"Subject to the other provisions contained in or referred to by this chapter a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication."
27. In order to claim relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from diverting the course of water supply from the house of plaintiff and peaceful supply of water from public tube well, plaintiff is firstly required to establish her right to water supply via alleged water course / pipe line as well as her right to supply of water from public tube well.
28. Clean drinking water is a basic amenity for sustenance of life and is a concomitant right flowing from Article 21 of Constitution of India.
29. Therefore, to seek relief of injunction against the defendants from interfering in the supply of water from public tubewell, plaintiff is required to show her right to water supply through public tubewell and any infringement, if any, of such right by the defendant. Plaintiff has claimed that like other residents of the locality she is entitled to supply of clean drinking water from the tube well installed in the locality and operated and controlled by defendant no.1. Plaintiff has been drawing drinking water through the tube well operated and controlled Suit No. 129/2010 9/19 pages by defendant no.1 and defendant no.1 has also admitted in its WS that defendant no.1 has installed two tubewells in ABlock, Ambedkar Colony for supplying water to the residents of this unauthorized colony and water tank has been installed on the water distribution line for public distribution of water. Defendant no.1 has admitted in its WS to the extent that water is supplied to the residents of the unauthorized colony of ABlock, Ambedkar Colony through two tube wells installed therein and water tap has been installed on the line for public distribution of water. Therefore, defendant no.1 has admitted right of all the residents of ABlock, Ambedkar Colony including plaintiff to get water supply from the public tubewell (through water taps installed thereupon) installed in the colony.
30. Plaintiff's primary grievance is against defendant no.2 who has been alleged to be deployed by local authorities of defendant no.1 to control and operate the tube well. Plaintiff has averred in her plaint that the local residents of the locality are supplied drinking water through tubewell operated and controlled by the DJB/defendant no.1 and defendant no.1 has deployed one lady namely Smt. Jagga/defendant no.2 to control and operate the tube well in Ambedkar Colony who is charging Rs.200 to Rs.300/ from each house owner for supplying water and has been harassing plaintiff to pay Rs.400/ per month for supplying water. Further, plaintiff has stated in her affidavit Ex.PW1/X that defendant no.1 has deployed defendant no.2 to control and operate tube well in Ambedkar Nagar colony. Plaintiff has made several complaints and has relied Suit No. 129/2010 10/19 pages on complaint made to PS Mehrauli dt. 23.8.2009 which is Ex.PW1/A and complaint to defendant no.1 dt. 25.8.2009 which is Ex.PW1/B. Plaintiff in her own cross examination has stated that she has not paid any fees to the DJB for water connection to her house and she has voluntarily stated that defendant no.2 took money as employee of DJB. The witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff have also not supported allegation of plaintiff that defendant no.2 was employee of defendant no.1 or that local residents were under this impression. PW2 in his cross examination has stated that "I did not know that defendant no.2 was an employee of defendant no.1 and came to know later that defendant no.2 was not an employee of DJB and has also voluntarily stated that he came to know from the public that she was not an employee of defendant no.1 and collects money without any authority.
31. Thus, it is clear from the statement of PW2 that the local residents of the locality were aware of the fact that defendant no.2 was not an employee of defendant no.1 and was not collecting money on behalf of or with the authority of defendant no.1.
32. PW3 has categorically stated in his cross examination that according to his knowledge that "Defendant no.2 was not an employee of defendant no.1".
33. PW3 has further stated in his cross examination that water pipes were laid in the colony by defendant no.2 from the money collected by her from the residents of the colony for construction of water pipes.
Suit No. 129/2010 11/19 pages
34. DW2 has stated on oath in his cross examination that Smt. Jagga was never employed by Civil Wing of DJB and has answered in negative to the suggestion of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that Smt. Jagga was deployed by DJB to give water to the residents of the colony after taking money from them for the same or that Pinku was deployed by DJB.
35. Plaintiff has relied in his replication to WS of defendant no.1 on copy of order dated 12.10.2009 of the Public Grievance Commission of Govt. of NCT. Plaintiff had confronted DW2 with the above said document which was thereafter exhibited as Ex.DW1/P1. The Public Grievance Commission of Govt. of NCT has observed in its order dt. 12.10.09 Ex.DW1/P1 that "Enquiries made by police have revealed that Ambedkar Colony has a Govt. tubewell supplying water to six streets of the colony comprising 50 to 60 houses, operated by one Pinku engaged by the residents of the colony. Earlier Smt. Jagga was operating the tubewell and residents were paying Rs.30/ to Rs.40/ per house per month as per mutual agreement. The problem of water shortage is being faced by all the residents."
36. The portion relevant to the issue at hand in the finding of the Public Grievance Commission of Govt. of NCT contained in Ex.DW1/P1 is that defendant no.2 was operating the tube well and the residents were paying her certain sum of money per month as per the mutual agreement.
37. Therefore, from the testimony of PW1, PW2, PW3 and documents relied upon by the plaintiff, specifically Ex.DW1/P1, there is no evidence to show that defendant no.2 was appointed by defendant no.1 to operate and control the tube Suit No. 129/2010 12/19 pages well in Ambedkar Colony as alleged by the plaintiff.
38. Therefore, the allegations of the plaintiff against defendant no.1 that defendant no.2 was appointed by defendant no.1 to collect money from the residents of Ambedkar Colony in lieu of supply of water from the tubewell installed therein by the defendant no.1, is without merit.
39. In order to seek relief of permanent injunction against the defendants to restrain them from diverting the course of water supply from the house of plaintiff, plaintiff is required to show her right to such supply of water through water pipeline alleged to have been laid by defendant no.1 in colony and infringement of such right, if any, by the defendants.
40. Plaintiff has averred in her plaint that the local residents of the locality are supplied drinking water through tubewell operated and controlled by the DJB/defendant no.1 and defendant no.1 has deployed one lady namely Smt. Jagga/defendant no.2 to control and operate the tube well in Ambedkar Colony who is charging Rs.200 to Rs.300/ from each house owner for supplying water and has been harassing plaintiff to pay Rs.400/ per month for supplying water. Plaintiff has made several complaints and has relied on complaint made to PS Mehrauli dt. 23.8.2009 which is Ex.PW1/A and complaint to defendant no.1 dt. 25.8.2009 which is Ex.PW1/B. In her examination in chief vide affidavit Ex.PW1/X plaintiff has deposed that on 26.8.09, defendant no.2 called three persons namely Sameer, Baby and Bimla and asked them to stop water supply to the house of plaintiff it is alleged that the above said persons started digging Suit No. 129/2010 13/19 pages the water line and when this was objected to by the plaintiff, plaintiff was abused and slapped by defendant no.2. Plaintiff has deposed in her affidavit that the water line was dugged and water supply was stopped to her house by abovesaid persons.
41. Plaintiff has further deposed in her affidavit Ex.PW1/X that the defendants have diverted the course of water pipe line as such that she cannot get water. Plaintiff has relied upon complaint dt. 29.8.2009 made to SHO which is Mark PW1/E and complaint to the police dt. 1.9.09 which is Ex.PW1/F. During the course of her cross examination, plaintiff has admitted that she did not pay any bill to defendant no.1 but used to pay money to defendant no.2 for supply of water on behalf of defendant no.1. Further, plaintiff has stated voluntarily that defendant no.2 was taking money as employee of defendant no.1.
42. Plaintiff has examined Sh. Mahavir s/o Sh. Arjun r/o 359, Village Mandi, New Delhi as PW2 who has stated during the course of his cross examination that on 26.8.09, Smt. Jagga along with Sameer, Baby and Bimla came to the house of plaintiff for disconnecting the water supply and started digging and disconnecting water supply and broke half of the water tanks. PW2 has also admitted in his cross examination that "At the time when the said incident happened to my knowledge no official of Delhi Jal Board was there at the scene though, the official of Jal Board were there. It is correct that disconnection of water supply made on 26.8.09 was not done by Delhi Jal Board."
43. PW2 has stated in his cross examination that DJB has disconnected the entire Suit No. 129/2010 14/19 pages water pipe line after 3 to 4 dates of the incident. PW2 has also voluntarily stated that no one pays water bill in the colony as the colony is unauthorised and water connection is not sanctioned.
44. Plaintiff has examined Sh. Javed Akhtar S/o Sh. Samsuddin r/o A70/212, Ambedkar Colony, Chattarpur, New Delhi as PW3 who has stated during the course of his cross examination that he had water connection in respect of which he paid Rs.200/ per month and demand of Rs.2000/ was made by Smt. Jagga. PW3 has further admitted in his cross examination that "The pipe lines were laid only after the tube well had been constructed. The said pipe lines were laid by Smt. Jagga funded by the money which she collected from the residents of the colony. The said Smt. Jagga collected the money for construction of water pipes about 45 years back. To my knowledge Smt. Jagga was not a official of Delhi Jal Board. However, she collected the money from residents of colony and gave it to Delhi Jal Board. I know this factum that money was paid by Smt. Jagga to Delhi Jal Board because whenever I took complaint against Smt Jagga for having disconnected my water connection to Delhi Jal Board, they refused to take the same and suggested to settle amongst ourselves."
45. PW3 has stated that the colony in question is an unauthorised colony and water connections to the same are not sanctioned by DJB.
46. Defendant has examined Sh. Naresh Kumar C/o EE (E&M), W&S (S)III, Delhi Jal Board, New Delhi as DW1 who has relied on Ex.DW1/1 which is copy of duty roaster and Mark DW1/2 which is copy of duty roaster. DW1 appearing on behalf of defendant has stated in his cross examination that the water is supplied Suit No. 129/2010 15/19 pages to the residents of locality through five hydrants which bear the water taps.
47. Defendant has further examined Sh. Pradeep Kumar, JE (Civil) C/o EE (E&M), W&S (S)III, Delhi Jal Board, New Delhi as DW2 who has relied upon Mark DW2/C i.e. document dt. 31.1.2011. DW2 has stated in his cross examination that "Water was supplied to the public /residents of the locality by water hydrants. It is incorrect to suggest that defendant had laid down pipelines in the colony and water was supplied vide these pipe lines."
48. DW2 has denied the suggestion of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the water pipeline going towards house of the plaintiff was blocked and water supply was disconnected by defendant no.1. Defendant has further examined Sh. Kanwar Pal, Beldar, C/o EE (E&M), W&S (S)III, Delhi Jal Board, New Delhi as DW3 who has relied on Ex.DW3/1 i.e. copy of duty roaster.
49. From the oral testimony of witnesses, it can be reiterated that plaintiff in her cross examination has stated that water connection to the individual houses and water connection to her house was provided by defendant no.1 and she has denied suggestion of the Ld. Counsel for the defendant that no individual water connection was provided by defendant no.1 as the colony was unauthorized. However, PW2 during the course of his cross examination has voluntarily stated that the water connection in the colony is not sanctioned. On the same lines, PW3 had answered in affirmation to the suggestion that the colony was an unauthorized colony and as such water connections in Ambedkar Colony are Suit No. 129/2010 16/19 pages not sanctioned by defendant no.1. PW3 had stated during her cross examination that the pipelines were laid only after tube well has been constructed and the pipelines were laid by defendant no.2 from the money collected by her from the residents of the colony.
50. Therefore, the allegation of plaintiff that the water pipelines from tubewells to her house and houses of other residents were provided by the defendant no.1 has not been supported by the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff i.e. PW2 and PW3. Instead, it is clearly admitted by PW2 and PW3 that the colony is an unauthorized colony and water pipeline is not sanctioned by defendant no. 1 for the colony. Therefore, there is no reason to believe the averment of the plaintiff that water pipeline was laid by defendant no.1 in the Ambedkar colony to the houses of its residents for distribution of water to local residents. Plaintiff has also admitted in her cross examination that no fees was paid by her to the defendant no.1 for water connection to her house nor any bill was paid to defendant no.1. Accordingly, in opinion of this court, plaintiff has failed to prove that there was any authorised water connection/pipeline laid by defendant no.1 from tubewell to her house or that she has right to claim such water pipeline to her house from tubewell.
51. Thus, from above said observations and findings, it can be said that plaintiff has right to supply of uninterrupted water from the public tubewells (through taps installed thereupon) installed by defendant no.1 in the Ambedkar Colony for public distribution of water. However, plaintiff has failed to show that defendant Suit No. 129/2010 17/19 pages no.2 was appointed by defendant no.1 to control or operate the tubewell in Ambedkar Colony and therefore even if there was any attempt by defendant no. 2 of charging water supply through the public tubewell installed in the colony, as alleged by the plaintiff, it cannot be said to be at behest of the defendant no.1. Thus, plaintiff has failed to establish that defendant no.1 has infringed her right to supply of water from public tubewell (through taps installed thereupon) installed in Ambedkar Colony. Secondly, plaintiff has failed to show that she has any right to supply of water from public tubewells to her house through water pipelines, alleged to have been laid by defendant no.1, as there is no evidence to show that any such water pipeline has been legally sanctioned for the Ambedkar Colony.
52. However, plaintiff has alleged that defendant no.2 had been charging Rs.200/ to Rs.300/ from each house owner for supplying water from the public tubewell and has been harassing plaintiff to pay Rs.400/ per month for supplying water from public tubewell. Defendant no.2 has filed her WS and thereafter failed to lead evidence in her defence and therefore was proceeded ex parte on 10.8.11. Therefore, the oral testimony and documents relied upon by the plaintiff against defendant no.2 have remained uncontroverted and unrebutted. Since, plaintiff has established her right to supply of water from public tubewell (through taps installed thereon), and admittedly the supply of water from public tubewell (through taps installed thereupon) is without any charge/fees, therefore, defendant no.2 has no right or authority to charge plaintiff or the other residents Suit No. 129/2010 18/19 pages of the Ambedkar Colony for supply of water from public tubewells (through taps installed therein), which are installed in Ambedkar Colony for public distribution of water.
ISSUE No.2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other relief? OPP
53. From the findings reached at in Issue no.1, plaintiff has failed to establish that she is entitled to relief of permanent injunction against defendant no.1. The suit is decreed against defendant no.2 and accordingly, defendant no.2 is restrained from interfering or disturbing in supply of water to the plaintiff from the public tubewells (through water taps installed thereupon) installed by defendant no.1 in ABlock, Ambedkar Colony for public distribution of water to the residents of the colony or charging for it from the plaintiff.
54. No order as to cost.
55. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
56. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Ritu Singh)
Dated 23.09.2013 Civil Judge04/South District
New Delhi
Suit No. 129/2010 19/19 pages