Punjab-Haryana High Court
Santokh Singh vs The Sub Divisional Officer on 8 May, 2009
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.2636 of 2009(O&M)
Date of decision: 8.5.2009
Santokh Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
The Sub Divisional Officer,
P.S.E.B and others ......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. H.K.Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
* * *
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the orders dated 13.9.2006 and 18.3.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Tarn Taran and the Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran respectively, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from disconnecting the electricity connection was dismissed.
As per the averments made in this petition, an Electric Power Connection bearing account No.J-35/AP of 12.5 BHP was sanctioned and released in the name of one Ganda Singh son of Lehna Singh which was later on got stipulated into two connections on 28.3.1972. One connection of 5 BHP bearing new account No.J-28-AP was given to Pal Singh in his land bearing Khasra No.110/25(6-14) in the area of village Khadoor Sahib and the second connection was running in the land of Sadhu singh since then. Pal Singh was the father of the petitioner. After his death, the aforesaid connection is being used by the petitioner. The electric connection was still in the name of Ganda Singh as per the records of the respondent. However, the electricity charges relating to the above-said connection were deposited by the plaintiff. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner filed an application in the office of respondent No.3 to transfer the electric connection in his name. However, no action was taken by the respondents on his application. Instead the respondents started threatening the petitioner to disconnect the above said connection thus, compelling him to file the present suit. Along with the suit, the petitioner also moved an application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 CPC praying therein that the defendant-respondents be restrained from disconnecting the electricity supply to the electric connection of the petitioner during the pendency of the suit. The aforesaid application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Courts below.
Challenging the aforesaid orders, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Courts below have erred at law while dismissing the application for grant of ad interim injunction as the Local Commissioner in his report has submitted that the electric connection of the petitioner was found running. Moreover, the petitioner was using the electric connection in dispute since 1972 and in case the electricity is disconnected, he shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury and thus, the petitioner was entitled to the grant of ad interim injunction as prayed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
After appreciating the pleadings and documents on the record, the Courts below have found that the electric connection of the petitioner was running in an unauthorized manner which was disconnected on 31.12.2005 and thus, the petitioner has no case for grant of ad interim injunction. From the report of the Local Commissioner, it cannot be made out that the electricity connection of the petitioner was running on the basis of supply of electricity by the Department. Thus, the prayer of the petitioner restraining the defendants from disconnecting the electricity connection had already become infructuous even before the filing of the suit. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Om Parkash and others v. Ishwar Singh and others 2008(4) PLR 38 is distinguishable on the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case, the electric connection was not disconnected by the respondent- Department.
Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed.
May 8, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE