Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 248 (PNJ)

Raje Ram v. Diwan Singh

2001-02-20

R.L.ANAND

body2001
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 20.10.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, who dismissed the suit filed by the present petitioner Mr. Raje Ram under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :- 2. Diwan Singh-respondent No. 1 filed a suit against H.V.P.H. and Raje Ram- present petitioner who was defendant No. 4 in the trial court for permanent injunction. It was alleged by Diwan Singh that he is the owner and in possession of the land in dispute. He moved an application for a direction to defendants No. 1 to 3 for electricity connection in the disputed land for the purpose of running a tubewell. A three phase line from point A to B was installed by defendants 1 to 3 on his expenses. However, a single phase connection from point P to D was given to defendant No. 4 for domestic purposes. It is also alleged by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 that defendant No. 4-the petitioner in collusion with defendants 1 to 3 now wants to take the connection from point B by installing poles in the disputed land illegally. It is averred by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 that defendant No. 4- petitioner cannot be allowed to take his connection from point P because he has borne the entire expenses of three phasing the line from point A to B and if defendant No. 4-petitioner is given electricity from point P, then more electricity poles will be required to be installed in the disputed land. If the electricity connection of defendant No. 4-petitioner is given from the original point, then only two poles will be required to be installed but if the electricity connection is given from point B, four poles will be required to be installed. If the electricity connection of defendant No. 4-petitioner is given from the original point, then only two poles will be required to be installed but if the electricity connection is given from point B, four poles will be required to be installed. Therefore, electricity connection of defendant No. 4- petitioner should be released from point C. Along with the suit, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 has filed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure and prayed that during the pendency of the suit, defendants 1 to 3 be restrained from restoring the electricity connection of defendant No. 4-petitioner from point B. Notice of the suit as well as the application was given to the defendants. They filed reply and denied the allegations. The learned trial Court vide order dated 26.9.2000 allowed the application for the following reasons given in para 10 of the order :- "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the file, it is clear that the main dispute is as to from which point (B, F, C) the electricity connection of the defendant No. 4 should be restored. It is also clear that the transformers on the disputed line are at point B and point C only, therefore, defendant No. 4 can be given an electricity connection from these points only. Perusal of the site plan of the plaintiff reveals that if the connection is given from point B which is a longer distance, more electricity poles will be required to be erected and this will cause interference in the agricultural pursuits of the plaintiff and will further cause more expenditure to defendant No. 4. The electricity connection from point C if granted will not require erection of more poles because the electricity poles at point E can be removed and used for laying the line from point B to C. Although the PVC connection can also be given from point F but as conceded by learned counsel for defendants 1 to 3, it will be at a very low height since the required height for HT line has not been observed. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has made a prima facie case in his favour and he shall suffer irreparable loss if the restoration of electricity connection of defendant No. 4 interferes in his agricultural work. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has made a prima facie case in his favour and he shall suffer irreparable loss if the restoration of electricity connection of defendant No. 4 interferes in his agricultural work. Accordingly, the stay application is allowed and defendants are restrained from restoring the electricity connection of defendant No. 4 from point B and from erecting electricity poles in the disputed land. However, defendants 1 to 3 shall be at liberty to restore the electricity connection from point C or from point F provided they observe the required standard of height by making necessary changes." 3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned trial court, the petitioner- defendant No. 4 had filed an appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, who dismissed the appeal for the reasons given in para 6 of the impugned order dated 20.10.2000 which reads as under :- "On perusal of record on file, it is clear that the main dispute is as to from which point whether point B, F, or C, the electricity connection should be restored to defendant No. 4, since the transformer are situated at points B & C only, therefore, it will be feasible to give electric connection from point B more poles have to be erected and will be more expenditure to defendant No. 4. However, if the electricity connection from point C is granted, it will not require erection of more poles because electricity poles at point E can be removed and used for laying the line from point B to C. It is not possible to give P.V.C. connection from point F because that will be at a low height to install HT line. Thus, plaintiff has got a prima facie case if the electricity connection of defendant No. 4 is given from these points only. As per the site plan of the plaintiff, if connection is given from point B which is situated in the disputed land. Thus, the trial Court took the correct view while coming to the conclusion that plaintiff has no prima facie case in his favour and balance of convenience is also against him and he cannot suffer irreparable loan (loss ?) if injunction is not given to him. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed." 4. I have heard Mr. Parveen Hans, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed." 4. I have heard Mr. Parveen Hans, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. B.R. Vohra, Advocate, for respondents 2 to 4 and with their assistance, I have gone through the record of the case. 5. The principle argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier one Daya Chand filed a suit for permanent injunction against Diwan Singh and Raje Ram in which vide order dated 30.9.2000, the Civil Court granted status quo vis-a-vis the plaintiff and respondent No. 3 and they were directed to the maintain status quo qua the installation of new electric poles in the suit land in the interest of justice. it was submitted on the basis of the strength of the order dated 30.9.2000 that since the status quo order has already been granted in favour of Daya Chand, therefore, the petitioner can only be benefited if the electric connection is given from transformer B as shown in the site plan at page 28 of the file. On the contrary, it is argued by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 that the petitioner has not taken any steps for vacation of the order dated 30.9.2000. Moreover, the trial Court passed the order dated 26.9.2000 in the present suit by allowing the application of respondent No. 1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure. It was argued by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that if the land of both the parties i.e. the plaintiff-Diwan Singh and defendant No. 4-Raje Ram is scrutinized, it will show that the electric connection to defendant No. 4 from point C is more feasible than that of point B. There is a merit in the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 because point C where the transformer is installed is nearer to the agricultural land of defendant No. 4-petitioner. Point D is at a more distance meaning thereby that more poles are required to be installed or erected in the land of defendant No. 1 whereas less poles are required to be installed at the land of Diwan Singh where transformer is installed at point C. 6. Point D is at a more distance meaning thereby that more poles are required to be installed or erected in the land of defendant No. 1 whereas less poles are required to be installed at the land of Diwan Singh where transformer is installed at point C. 6. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that both the Courts have rightly thought it proper to exercise the discretion in favour of Diwan Singh and the High Court will be very slow in interfering in these types of orders. 7. This revision petition is accordingly disposed of with the observations that let the petitioner may make an application under Order 39 Rule 4 Code of Civil Procedure for vacation of the stay order dated 30.9.2000. Directions are also given to the Board to file an application under Order 39 Rule 4 Code of Civil Procedure for the vacation of the stay granted on 30.9.2000. If any such application is moved by the petitioner-defendant No. 4 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhiwani, it shall be disposed of by the learned Judge within 15 days from the date of receipt of such application. Copy of the order be given dasti and also be sent to the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhiwani, for information. Order accordingly.