JUDGMENT : AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. CM No. 4842-LPA of 2016 In the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, prayer has been made for producing the guidelines (Annexure A-1) by way of additional evidence. There is no merit in the application which is accordingly rejected. LPA No. 2337 of 2016 1. Challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) is to the judgment dated 31.5.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby CWP No. 4864 of 2014 filed by respondent no. 4 was allowed. 2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. Respondent No. 4 filed an application before respondent no. 3 for fixing the turn of water as per Section 68 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 read with Appendix 'E' of the Punjab Irrigation Manual on the ground that he has to take his Nakka from point 'A' shown in the site plan, Annexure R-1. Prior to him taks of other shareholders also come. Khata No. 123 of the appellants touches the main watercourse and the branch watercourse prior to the khata of respondent no. 4 and as such he was entitled to turn of water after khata no. 123. Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 13.4.2011 (Annexure P-1) allowed the application by holding that as per the principle of first come first serve khata no. 123 comes first. Against the said order, appellant no. 1 filed an appeal before respondent no. 4 who vide order dated 13.2.2013 (Annexure P-2) dismissed the said appeal. Against the order, Annexure P-2, appellant no. 1 filed an appeal before respondent no. 1. Respondent No. 1 vide order dated 1.8.2013 (Annexure P-3) allowed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, respondent no. 4 filed CWP No. 4864 of 2014 and this Court vide impugned order dated 31.5.2016 set aside the order, Annexure P-3 and restored that of the orders (Annexures P-1 and P-2, respectively). Hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the khata of the appellants touches on both the watercourses, i.e. watercourse emerging from point 'B' and part of the land on watercourse 'ABC' shown with arrows in the site plan, Annexure R-1. Further, the learned counsel supported the order dated 1.8.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent no. 1. 4. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the khata of the appellants touches on both the watercourses, i.e. watercourse emerging from point 'B' and part of the land on watercourse 'ABC' shown with arrows in the site plan, Annexure R-1. Further, the learned counsel supported the order dated 1.8.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent no. 1. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, we do not find any merit in the appeal. 5. Learned Single Judge after perusing the record in detail observed that the main watercourse is one which emerges from outlet and any other watercourses emerging from the main watercourse are branch watercourses. The water always runs in watercourse as per the slope and never runs backward. In the instant case, the branch watercourse will run first as 'ABC' is the main watercourse and the watercourse emerging at point 'B' going downwards towards Southern side is a branch watercourse. It was further noticed that khata no. 123 of the appellants touches the main watercourse 'ABC' and branch watercourse emerging from point 'B' going towards South also passes through the land of the appellants. As per the site plan (Annexure R-1), there were three nakkas points, i.e. points 'A', 'B' and 'C'. Respondent No. 4's nakka taking point was 'A' and he irrigated his fields shown in red colour at point 'C' where the watercourse 'ABC' ends. Still further, the main watercourse was 'ABC' from which the branch watercourse emerged towards Southern side at point 'B'. Khata No. 123 of the appellants touched both the watercourses and was prior to khata of respondent No. 4 whose land was at the end of the main watercourse. According to Appendix 'E' of the Irrigation Manual, branch watercourse, which emerged at point 'B' would run first and the residue of that branch watercourse would go to the person who were at the end of the branch watercourse. After closing nakka of branch watercourse at point 'B', the remaining para 'BC' of main watercourse would run and therefore, the land of respondent No. 4 being at the end of main watercourse 'ABC' he was entitled to nikal (residue) of main watercourse. The learned Single Judge granted the liberty to the appellants to get their turns fixed at the main watercourse 'ABC' or at the branch watercourse emerging at point 'B'. The learned Single Judge granted the liberty to the appellants to get their turns fixed at the main watercourse 'ABC' or at the branch watercourse emerging at point 'B'. The relevant findings recorded by the learned Single read thus:- “The main watercourse is one which emerges from outlet and any other watercourses emerging from the main watercourse are branch watercourses. It is settled principle the water always runs in watercourse as per the slope and never runs backward. Thus, in this case 'ABC' is the main watercourse and watercourse emerging at point 'B' going downwards towards Southern side is a branch watercourse. Thus branch watercourse will run first. Perusal of site plan (Annexure R-1) reveals that khata no. 123 of private respondents, shown in yellow colour touches the main watercourse 'ABC' and branch watercourse emerging from point 'B' going towards South also passes through the land of private respondents having khata no. 123. Perusal of site plan further reveals that there are three nakka points at points 'A', 'B' & 'C'. Petitioner's nakka taking point is 'A' and he irrigates his fields, shown in red colour at point 'C', where the watercourse 'ABC' ends. Perusal of site plan further reveals that main watercourse is 'ABC' from which the branch watercourse emerges towards Southern side at point 'B'. Khata No. 123 of private respondents touches both the watercourses and is prior to khata of the petitioner and land of the petitioner is at the end of main watercourse 'ABC'. In this manner, as per Appendix-E of the Irrigation Manual, branch watercourse, which emerges at point 'B' would run first and the residue of that branch watercourse would go to the persons who are at the end of the branch watercourse. Thereafter, after closing nakka of branch watercourse at point 'B', the remaining part 'BC' of main watercourse 'ABC' would run. In this manner, the land of the petitioner is at the end of main watercourse 'ABC' he will be entitled to nikal (residue) of main watercourse 'ABC'. The private respondents will be at liberty to get their turns fixed at the main watercourse 'ABC' or at the the branch watercourse emerging at point-B.” 6. Learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 31.5.2016 warranting interference by this Court. Further, it was rightly held that the land of respondent no. Learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 31.5.2016 warranting interference by this Court. Further, it was rightly held that the land of respondent no. 4 being at the end of main watercourse 'ABC' he was entitled to nikal (residue) of main watercourse. Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. 7. There is a delay of 132 days in filing the appeal. CM No. 4843-LPA of 2016 has been filed for condonation of 132 days' delay in filing the appeal. Since the appeal has been dismissed on merits, no further orders are required to be passed in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the same is disposed of as such.