Delhi District Court
Sarabjeet Singh vs Bses on 8 April, 2026
CS SCJ 460/19 SARABJEET SINGH Vs. BSES
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL,
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02 (WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLWT030008672019
CS SCJ No. 460/19
DLWT030008672019
SH. SARABJEET SINGH
S/o Late Sh. Surjit Singh
R/o B-2/119 Second Floor,
Janakpuri, Delhi-58. ........PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1.BSES Through Branch Manager Office Address:
G-8, Maya Enclave, Near Clock Tower, Hari Nagar, Janakpuri, New Delhi-64
2. RAJA SINGH LUTHRA S/o Late Sh. Surjit Singh R/o A-3/26 Ground Floor, Janakpuri, Delhi-58.
......DEFENDANTS Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2026.04.08 16:49:22 +0530 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 1/18 08.04.2026 CS SCJ 460/19 SARABJEET SINGH Vs. BSES SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION Judgment
1. This judgment of mine shall decide the present suit filed by plaintiff seeking the relief of mandatory injunction against the defendants.
VERSION OF PLAINTIFF:-
2. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of mandatory injunctions in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby directing the defendant No. 2 to provide all assistance for the purpose of getting new electricity VIVEK connection in the name of plaintiff and directing the defendant No. 1 KUMAR to grant new connection of electricity in the suit premises, i.e. A-30, AGARWAL PHASE-II, MAYAPURI, DELHI 110064 (hereinafter called as suit Digitally signed by VIVEK property). KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2026.04.08 16:49:28 +0530 2.1. It is pertinent to mention that original plaint was allowed to be amended vod. 03.08.2019. As per the amended plaint, the case of plaintiff in brief is that Surjit Singh Luthra had two son namely Sarabjeet Singh (plaintiff) and Raja Singh Luthra Singh (defendant no. 2). That on 10.05.2007, Surjit Singh Luthra had expired. That the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 have got equal share in (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 2/18 08.04.2026 CS SCJ 460/19 SARABJEET SINGH Vs. BSES built-up property at suit property by way of registered WILL executed by their father. That in the last week of April, 2007 before expiration of father of plaintiff a meeting had taken place and plaintiff, defendant no. 2, uncle Gurdeep Singh and father of plaintiff are the members of that meeting. That it was agreed between them that plaintiff and defendant no. 2 has equal share in the Mayapuri in suit property and they have separate business and plaintiff and defendant no. 2 will bear half share in electricity bill, whatever be the bill till separate electricity meter installation by either plaintiff or defendant no. 2. That defendant no. 2 had never paid his half share in electricity bill. That when plaintiff asked for payment of electricity bill from the defendant no. 2 of his half share, he always requested to plaintiff for paying his half share and promised to pay the same to the plaintiff later. That plaintiff being the brother of defendant no. 2 always paid his half share of electricity bill. That whenever plaintiff asked for VIVEK KUMAR account of electricity bill, defendant no. 2 always made excuses and AGARWAL ignored for the same one pretext or the other. That the defendant no. 2 has not been paying a single penny of his half share in electricity Digitally signed by VIVEK bill since March, 2017 and he has also not cleared his past dues KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2026.04.08 against the electricity bill, which were borne by plaintiff, due to which 16:49:34 +0530 plaintiff is facing huge loss of money without any fault on his part. That the defendant no. 2 is not paying electricity bill of his part that is why plaintiff is paying the same, otherwise the defendant no. 1 shall cut the electricity connection due to which plaintiff can face irreparable loss of his business. That load of meter is in excess of (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 3/18 08.04.2026 CS SCJ 460/19 SARABJEET SINGH Vs. BSES usages due to which plaintiff has to pay extra bill. That plaintiff intimated the defendant no. 2 for the same but he refused to cooperate with plaintiff for getting load reduction of meter. That plaintiff had approached to defendant no. 1 with requesting for load reduction, but BSES rejected plaintiff request with reason of incomplete document i.e. Industrial license, NOC & Id Proof of Sh. Raja Singh all the document are lying with the defendant no. 2.
2.2. It is stated that plaintiff has approached defendant no. 1 for taking appointment for getting new electricity connection in his own name, but defendant no. 1 has stated that first of all plaintiff should get all the document i.e. Industrial license, NOC from defendant no.2, Original Property Papers, which were lying with defendant no. 2, Original Will etc. That the plaintiff received deficiency letter dated 10.01.2019 of his application for reduction of load CA. NO. 100002966 from BSES RAJDHANI that some document are not complete i.e. industrial liecence NOC and Id proof VIVEK KUMAR of defendant no. 2. That thereafter plaintiff has intimated to defendant AGARWAL no. 2 for taking online appointment for getting new electricity Digitally signed connection and for aforesaid document requirement and for by VIVEK KUMAR appearing before BSES. That plaintiff had sent a intimation/request AGARWAL Date: 2026.04.08 letter dated 11.01.2019 to defendant no. 2 for providing the NOC for 16:49:41 +0530 getting new electricity connection on his own name and again a reminder dated 18.01.2019 also sent for providing NOC for load reduction and new electricity connection and other formalities. That (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 4/18 08.04.2026 CS SCJ 460/19 SARABJEET SINGH Vs. BSES defendant no. 2 sent a reply dated 31.01.2019 and refused to do so and in his reply he has not mentioned a single line for providing NOC for the above said purpose rather then frivolous demand without any basis. It is pertinent to mention here that plaintiff has sent a legal notice on defendant no.2 for demanding past electricity due, which were borne by plaintiff and in his reply to legal notice defendant no.2 has clearly said that plaintiff does not want to get new electricity connection in his name, but when plaintiff want to do the same then defendant no.2 pulls his hands for providing assistance for getting the same. That defendant no. 2 with ill intention neither wants to bear the electricity bill nor he wants to provide assistance for getting new electricity connection in the name of plaintiff because if new electricity connection had installed then defendant no.2 would have to bear full electricity bill himself alone and his ill intention for not VIVEK paying his half share of electricity bill fully could never be fulfilled. KUMAR That the defendant no.1 is duty bound to give supply of electricity to AGARWAL the occupier of any premises within its area under section 43 of the Digitally signed Electricity Act. That the occupier of the premises is entitled as of her by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL own right to supply of electricity. That the plaintiff is also ready to Date: 2026.04.08 16:49:45 +0530 fulfill all the requirements of the defendant no. 1 as per the conditions mentioned in their application but still it is not being entertained. That no balance amount is pending against plaintiff from BSES RAJDHANI till today. That the plaintiff is ready to furnish an indemnity bond that he will indemnify the defendant no. 1 in case any (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 5/18 08.04.2026 CS SCJ 460/19 SARABJEET SINGH Vs. BSES damage is caused to the electric meter, he is further ready to deposit a security deposit for the same and hence present suit.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT
3. In pursuance of summons appearance is made on behalf of defendants, however, WS was filed only on behalf of defendant no.
2. The plaintiff had also moved an application seeking interim order for installation of temporary electricity meter on behalf of plaintiff. Same was replied on behalf of defendant no. 1 / BSES and vod. 13.04.2022, the said application was allowed and thereafter, a temporary connection was provided to the plaintiff in the suit property.
VERSION OF DEFENDANT NO. 2 :-
4. As per the written statement filed by defendant no. 2, the preliminary objections has been taken that till date the suit property has not been mutated and therefore the separate meter cannot be installed as the property in question is still in the name of Late Sh.
VIVEK Surjeet Singh Luthra who was the father of the plaintiff and the KUMAR defendant no. 2. That the plaintiff has deliberately wrongly mentioned AGARWAL his age as 45 years, whereas his age is 58 years which is mentioned Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR in the supporting affidavit. That Gurdeep Singh whose name is AGARWAL Date: 2026.04.08 16:49:51 +0530 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 6/18 08.04.2026 CS SCJ 460/19 SARABJEET SINGH Vs. BSES mentioned in the list of witness is nothing to do with regard to the present and moreover the father's name of Gurdeep Singh has not been mentioned and moreover his address is not mentioned and it seems that he is a stock witness as there are no particulars about Gurdeep Singh. That the prayer clause (a) is wrong and not related to the defendant no.2 and it is not under the authority, power of the defendant no. 2 to provide assistance in getting the new electricity connection. That the plaintiff can apply for electricity meter in his name after mutation by the DDA. Moreover the plaintiff has filed and as per the the perpetual lease, lease the property in question is not freehold till date nor there has been a mutation. That even in the family Will, the deceased Surjeet Singh had stated that "after my death, the properties shall get mutated substituted, transferred in his/her name". That the plaintiff has himself filed the copy of Will and according to the same, the properties have to be mutated which VIVEK implied that the plaintiff has to first of all go for mutation before DDA KUMAR and thereafter get separate electricity connection in his own name. AGARWAL Till that time, the present suit is premature.
Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR4.1. That it is submitted that the electricity meter installed at AGARWAL Date: 2026.04.08 16:49:56 +0530 suit property still in the name of defendant no.2's father namely Late Surjeet Singh who was the proprietor of M/s. Eclips Industries and during his life time the business of the defendant no.2 and the plaintiff were doing their own independent respective businesses and the defendant no.2 was doing the business with his deceased father (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 7/18 08.04.2026 CS SCJ 460/19 SARABJEET SINGH Vs. BSES namely Surjeet Singh doing his whereas the plaintiff was separate business under the name and style of M/s. Toohima Filters and more so, the defendant no. 2's father namely Late Surjeet Singh during his life time instructed the plaintiff to get his the separate electricity connection as plaintiff was doing its own independent business.
4.2. It is further stated that whenever the defendant no.2's father the plaintiff to get a namely Late Surjeet Singh used to convey separate electricity connection, the plaintiff did not gave any plausible explanation for getting a new electricity connection and was using the electricity connection in the name of the defendant no.2's late father Surjeet Singh. Even at that time, during his life time, the defendant no. 2's father used to deposit the electricity bills on his own and many a times, had given the plaintiff cash to deposit to the VIVEK electricity department and the defendant no.2's father used to pay the KUMAR entire electricity bills as he was old aged at that time and he used to AGARWAL give cash to the plaintiff to deposit the electricity bills. That because Digitally signed by VIVEK of acts, the omission, commission and conduct of the plaintiff in April KUMAR AGARWAL 2005, the suit property was burnt due to gross negligence on the part Date: 2026.04.08 16:50:03 +0530 of plaintiff's keeping and using Methanol Drums in his factory and the plaintiff has bought scrape filter paper rolls in huge quantity and used to unload huge quantity of these items in the entire factory premises including main door to staircase, passage and the factory premises was looking like keeping junk of scrape filter papers. That the plaintiff has stored highly inflammable articles in the above said (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 8/18 08.04.2026 CS SCJ 460/19 SARABJEET SINGH Vs. BSES factory premises without taking license from the Commissioner MCD office which are prohibited under Section 417 Municipal Corporation Act and by storing such as Methanol is endangering the safety and health of the neighborer / factory owners and their labors as by keeping dangerous substance without taking the permission of the Commissioner of MCD construed as public nuisance also.
4.3. It is further stated that the electricity consumed by the plaintiff is at higher side. It is admitted that the father of the defendant no.2 expired in the year 2007. However, it is submitted that during the lifetime of the deceased father of the defendant no.2 namely Surjeet Singh, the business was separated but the electricity meter was common and the deceased father used to pay the entire electricity bills. Thereafter the defendant no.2 started paying the amount in the shape of cash to the plaintiff to pay the electricity bills and during the life time of the deceased father of the defendant no.2 namely Surjeet VIVEK Singh, it was told to the plaintiff to get the separate electricity meter KUMAR AGARWAL as the plaintiff was not paying single penny towards the electricity bills. That being in dominating position being brother started Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR consuming the electricity and used to take electricity bills from AGARWAL Date: 2026.04.08 16:50:09 +0530 consumed much the and elder the the defendant no.2 although the plaintiff electricity defendant no.2 has always paid the plaintiff the electricity bills amount without any delay and the defendant no.2 has time and again stated to the plaintiff to get separate electricity connection or get his sub meter but being the elder brother the (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 9/18 08.04.2026 CS SCJ 460/19 SARABJEET SINGH Vs. BSES plaintiff did not pay any heed on the requests of the defendant no.2. That it is submitted that the defendant no. 2 was doing the business with his father in the name and style of M/s. Eclips Industries and the defendant no.2 became the proprietor of the said firm after the death of his father and it was the prerogative of the plaintiff to get the electricity meter in his name after the death of the plaintiff's father but instead of doing the same, the plaintiff started consuming the electricity at very higher side but the plaintiff being elder brother dominated the defendant no.2 and started raising demands of the electricity bill and the defendant no.2 used to pay whatever demanded by the plaintiff as he was in dominating position. That there is no agreement of any kind regarding payment of half share of the electricity bills but as the plaintiff being elder brother used to ask the electricity bills amount, the defendant no.2 used to pay the same to the the plaintiff in cash. It is pertinent to note herein that the plaintiff asking the bill amount from 2008, it is surprising that from 2008 till VIVEK date, however, there is no single reminder or notice has been sent to KUMAR AGARWAL the defendant no. 2 and the entire story put up by the plaintiff is cook and bull story which is factually incorrect and without any basis and Digitally signed by VIVEK also and also barred under Limitation Act and as per the Limitation KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2026.04.08 Act there can be no recovery beyond three years. 16:50:14 +0530 4.4. It is further submitted that as the defendant no.1 is a government agency therefore it is necessary that the plaintiff firstly should got issued a mandatory 60 days notice under section 80 of (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 10/18 08.04.2026 CS SCJ 460/19 SARABJEET SINGH Vs. BSES CPC prior to filing of the present suit. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has also not filed any mandatory application under section 80 (2) of CPC, hence the present suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. That the defendant no.2 has never sent a letter to the defendant no.1 BSBS or never filed any application dated 10.01.2019 nor filed any BSES request letter for load reduction. Therefore, it is necessary to direct the defendant no.1 to provide the complete set with regard to request for load reduction on the application dated 10.01.2019. It is further stated that the signatures of the defendant no.2 has been forged and fabricated and it seems that the letter for load reduction has been sent by the plaintiff on the forged and fabricated signatures of the defendant no.2.
4.5. In reply on merits, all the averments of plaint are denied except the admission, as mentioned above.
ISSUES
5. Thereafter, pleadings were complete and the following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dt. 05.04.2021:-
Issue no.1:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP Digitally signed Issue no. 2:- Relief, if any. by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL Date:
AGARWAL 2026.04.08
16:50:20 +0530
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 11/18 08.04.2026 CS SCJ 460/19 SARABJEET SINGH Vs. BSES Evidence of Plaintiff:-
6. In plaintiff evidence, plaintiff examined himself as PW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A and relied on the following documents:-
Copy of Adhaar Card of plaintiff i.e. Ex. PW1/1. Copy of lease deed i.e. Mark A. Copy of Will i.e. Ex. PW1/3 (OSR). Copy of intimation dated 11.01.2019 for providing NOC, original lease deed of the property i.e. Ex. PW1/4(OSR). Copy of load reduction request letter dated 18.01.2019 i.e. Mark C. Copy of request letter dated 06.03.2019 i.e. Mark B. Copy of reply dated 31.01.2019 i.e. Ex. PW1/7 (OSR). Copy of reply dated 17.01.2019 to the application to BSES for load reduction i.e. Mark E. Copy of industrial license dated 10.04.2023 i.e. Mark D. 6.1. Thereafter the witness has been cross-examined accordingly and then PE has been closed vide separate statement dt.
10.12.2025. Digitally
signed by
VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR
AGARWAL
KUMAR Date:
AGARWAL 2026.04.08
Evidence of Defendant:- 16:50:26
+0530
7. In defendant evidence, the defendants have not lead any evidence on their behalf and accordingly, DE was closed on behalf of (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 12/18 08.04.2026 CS SCJ 460/19 SARABJEET SINGH Vs. BSES defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 vod. 16.01.2026 and 11.02.2026, respectively.
FINDINGS
8. The arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for both the parties have been heard at length and file including the written submissions filed on behalf of defendant no. 2 have been carefully and minutely perused and my issues wise findings with reasons thereof are as under:-ISSUE NO. 1
8.1. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. It has been argued by the counsel of plaintiff that the plaintiff has duly proved from his testimony that the plaintiff was an occupier in the suit property running his business. That as reflected from the document Ex.PW1/4, plaintiff had duly requested the defendant no. 2 for issuance of NOC, however, in the reply sent on his behalf i.e. VIVEK KUMAR Ex.PW1/7, he did not give any NOC to the plaintiff and rather raised AGARWAL some baseless allegations against the plaintiff. It is submitted that as Digitally signed per the policy / regulations of defendant no. 1, the NOC is required to by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL be obtained from the defendant no. 2 as being the co-owner of the suit Date: 2026.04.08 16:50:33 +0530 property, for purpose of new electricity connection, however, the plaintiff cannot be left at the mercy of the co-owner, when he is not issuing the said NOC deliberately, only with the intention to harass (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 13/18 08.04.2026 CS SCJ 460/19 SARABJEET SINGH Vs. BSES the plaintiff. It is further submitted that plaintiff has been providedd a temporary connection in the suit property vod. 13.04.2022 and that on the order of court, said connection can be converted into the permanent connection and accordingly, it is prayed that the plaintiff may be granted the said equitable relief of mandatory injunction so as he can fully enjoy his property.
8.2. On the other hand, in the written submissions filed on behalf of defendant no. 2, the questions have been raised on the maintainability of the suit on several grounds and I find it pertinent to deal firstly with the contentions raised on behalf of defendant no. 2 before going into the merits of the case of the plaintiff.
8.3. It has been stated that plaintiff has not filed any document of ownership / tenancy or lisence or authorization to show his entitlement to seek fresh electicity connection and that plaintiff VIVEK KUMAR had admitted in his cross-examination that electicity connection in AGARWAL the suit property was installed in the name of the father namely, Late Digitally signed by VIVEK Sh. Surjit Singh. In this regard, it is observed that in the WS filed on KUMAR AGARWAL behalf of defendant no. 2, it has been clearly admitted that the suit Date: 2026.04.08 16:50:39 +0530 property was owned by Late Sh. Surjit Singh, father of plaintiff and defendant no. 2 and therefore, it is the admitted case that after death of Late Sh. Surjit Singh, plaintiff and defendant no. 2 were the co-
owners of the suit property. Accordingly, the said plea taken on behalf of defendant no. 2 is apparently not tenanble.
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 14/18 08.04.2026 CS SCJ 460/19 SARABJEET SINGH Vs. BSES 8.4. Going one step further, it is obsereved that as provided under Rule 2 (6) of DERC (Supply Code and Performance Standards) Regulations, 2017, the "Applicant" means an owner or occupier of any premises who files an application with a Licensee, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the rules, the regulations and the Order made there under. Accordingly, to obtain the electicity connection, the plaintiff was not even otherwise, required to the owner of the suit property. It is not a matter of dispute in any manner that plaintiff is the occupier in the suit property. Accordingly, there is no further question about the entitlment of the plaintiff to obtain the electicity connection in the suit property in his name.
8.5. It has been further stated on behalf of defendant no. 2 that plaintiff had filed two separate suits for recovery of electicity dues and the present suit for installation of electicity meter and therefore, suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC as well as under VIVEK Section 10 CPC. In this regard, It is observed that as reflected from KUMAR AGARWAL the record, defendant no. 2 himself had filed a copy of order dt.
Digitally signed23.11.2023 passed by the Court of Ld. ADJ-01, South-West, by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL Dawarka Courts, vide with the other suit filed by the present plaintiff Date: 2026.04.08 16:50:45 +0530 against present defendant no. 2 in the year 2021, seeking recovery of electicity dues was stayed under Section 10 CPC on the ground that the present suit was pending in the court. Accordingly, the said plea placed on behalf of defendant no. 2 regarding stay under Section 10 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 15/18 08.04.2026 CS SCJ 460/19 SARABJEET SINGH Vs. BSES CPC is apparently not tenable as both the suit would not have been stayed. Again, as the present suit is the previous to the subsequent suit filed in the year 2021, the plea under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is also not tenable.
8.6. Another plea raised on behalf of defendant no. 2 is regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the court stating that it was only the Court at Dwarka, which was having the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. The said plea is again not tenable, as objection to the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be allowed at this stage for want of the objection being taken in the WS, as mandated under Section 21 of CPC.
8.7. Accordingly, all the contentions raised on behalf of defendant no. 2 are not sustainable. Now, coming to merits of the suit, it is observed that as discussed above, it is not the matter of dispute VIVEK KUMAR that the plaintiff is an occupation of the suit property and carrying on AGARWAL some business. Same has also been recorded in the cross-examination of Plaintiff / PW1. On the other hand, defendant no. 2 has failed to Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL disprove the said version of plaintiff. The defendant no. 1 / BSES has Date: 2026.04.08 16:50:51 +0530 not questioned the requirement of electicity by the plaintiff in the suit property. Again, from the evidence of plaintiff / PW1, it has also established that the defendant no. 2 was not paying the share of his electicity bill being raised on the basis of previous connection in the suit property. The defendant no. 2 failed to disprove the said version (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 16/18 08.04.2026 CS SCJ 460/19 SARABJEET SINGH Vs. BSES of plaintiff, as he did not step into the witness box and therfore, adverse inferrence can be also drawn against defendant no. 2 as per Section 114 of IEA. Accordingly, the plaintiff has duly satisfied the court about his requirement of new electicity connection to be provided by defendant no. 1 in the suit property.
8.8. It is further observed that from WS as well as written submissions filed on behalf of defendant no. 2, it is clear that defendant no. 2 was adamant so as not to provide NOC to the plaintiff for obtaining the new electicity connection or for purpose of reduction of load of the previous electicity connection. Said observations was also made by the court in the order dt. 13.04.2022, vide which plaintiff was provided the temeprary electicity connection on the suit premises. Accordingly, it is very clear that defendant no. 2 has been having the only intention of not issuing any NOC to the plaintiff for the reasons best known to him. Undoubtedly, the plaintiff VIVEK cannot be left at the disposal of defendant no. 2 and as per his whims KUMAR and fancies, for the new electicity connection. AGARWAL Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL 8.9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am duly satisified Date: 2026.04.08 16:50:56 +0530 that it is a fit case to grant the equitable relief of mandatary injunction to the plaintiff so as to direct the defendant no. 1 to provide permanent electicity connection in the suit property without issuance of NOC by the co-owner / defendant no. 2 and I order accordingly.
Issue no. 1 is decided accordingly in favour of plaintiff.
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 17/18 08.04.2026 CS SCJ 460/19 SARABJEET SINGH Vs. BSES ISSUE NO. 2:- RELIEF
10. In view of above findings of issue no. 1, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed to the effect that defendant no. 1 is hereby directed to convert the previous temporary electricity connection as permanent in the name of plaintiff at the suit property i.e. A-30, Phase-II, Mayapuri Industrial Area, New Delhi subject to requisite compliance, however, the plaintiff will not be asked to produce the NOC from the co-owner / defendant no. 2. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room Digitally signed after due compliance. VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2026.04.08 16:51:04 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West,THC, Delhi/08.04.2026 (Announced in open court On 08.04.2026).
Note: This judgment contains 18 pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me. VIVEK Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2026.04.08 16:51:11 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West,THC, Delhi/08.04.2026 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 18/18 08.04.2026