Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neelam vs Sdo City Sub Divisional Uhbvnl And ... on 18 October, 2022
ANIL KUMAR 2022.10.20 10:51 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 125 CR No.4051 of 2022 (O&M) Date of decision 18.10.2022 Neelam eta Petitioner Vs. SDO City Sub Divisional UHBVNL & Others... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present:- Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate, for the respondent No.1. Mr. Vinay Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Ankur Malik, Advocate, for respondent No.3. 3 2K 2s 2 2 2K Ke HARKESH MANUJA, J (Oral)
The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.08.2022, whereby, an interim prayer made by the petitioner seeking restoration of electricity supply to the premises in question was declined by the learned trial Court.
At the time of issuance of notice of motion, following order was passed on 22.09.2022:-
"Counsel for the petitioner submits that based on a transfer deed dated 13.01.2016, in favour of respondent No.2, respondent No.1 has disconnected her electricity connection vide PDCO Order No.92-02 dated 30.06.2022, on an application made by respondent No.2. He submits that this transfer deed dated 13.01.2016 executed by the husband of petitioner in her favour is already under challenge by way of civil suit filed at the instance of respondent No.2 and the same | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document is still pending sub-judice before the learned trial Court. Respondent No.2 has even got lodged one FIR No.238 dated 23.03.2022 registered at Police Station Sadar, Karnal against the husband of petitioner alleging fraud while executing the transfer deed dated 13.01.2016. The said FIR is already under challenge before this Court by way of CRM-M-35154-2022, wherein notice has already been issued. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner filed a civil suit for mandatory injunction challenging the disconnection and _ seeking restoration of the electricity connection. Along with the suit she also moved an application under Section 151 CPC with a prayer for seeking interim restoration of the electricity connection. Vide impugned order dated 23.08.2022, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal has dismissed the interim prayer made by the petitioner.
Though, to my mind, the proper remedy for seeking interim order could have been an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC instead of filing the application under Section 151 CPC, however, considering the fact that the electricity is part of basic amenity, without going into the technicalities as regards the remedy invoked by the petitioner, I find merit in his contention that once the transfer deed dated 13.01.2016 is already subject matter of the civil suit, respondent No.1 was required not to act in undue haste on the application made at the instance of respondent No.2 regarding disconnection of electricity.
Notice of motion for 12.10.2022.
Mr. Viney Saini, Advocate who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and seeks time to argue the matter.
In the meanwhile, respondent No.1 is directed to restore the electricity connection in favour of petitioner subject to payment of arrears due, if any.
Be shown in the urgent list."
ANIL KUMAR 2022.10.20 10:51 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ANIL KUMAR 2022.10.20 10:51 Today, an oral prayer has been made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner that the application filed at the instance of his client before the learned trial Court invoking the provisions of Section 151 CPC may be permitted to be treated as under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC as the substantive prayer made in the application was for grant of injunction only. Consequently, he further submits that the petitioner may be given liberty to challenge the order dated 23.08.2022 by filing miscellaneous appeal invoking the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC. Learned counsel for the respondents has no serious objections to the same. Accordingly, by treating the interim injunction application filed at the instance of petitioner- plaintiff filed under Section 151 CPC to be made Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, the petitioner is granted liberty to challenge the impugned order dated 23.08.2022 by way of filing miscellaneous appeal invoking the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC. In the meanwhile, the interim arrangement made in pursuance to order dated 22.09.2022 shall remain operative till the first appellate Court decides the ad-interim prayer made by the petitioner herein on an application made by her along with the miscellaneous appeal filed, if any. The petitioner undertakes to file miscellaneous appeal impugning the order dated 23.08.2022, within a period of 15 days from today. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that certain legal formalities for the purpose of restoration of electricity in accordance with the Electricity Supply Code, 2014, have not been complied with by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 further submits that a proper notice in this regard shall be served upon the petitioner within a period of 15 days from today to which learned counsel for the petitioner | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document undertakes to fulfill the requirement within a further period of 4 weeks, if remained incomplete.
Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(HARKESH MANUJA) 18.10.2022 JUDGE anil ANIL KUMAR 2022.10.20 10:51 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document