JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral) - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 14.6.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide which the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 herein against the order dated 21.5.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana, refusing the restoration of the electricity to the demised premises, has been allowed. 2. It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 1 herein was running business in the demised premises under the name and style of M/s. Jethi Engineering Works along with the wife of the petitioner namely Sunita Rani. She retired from the partnership on 31.3.2004. Thereafter all the assets and the liabilities of said firm were taken over by the respondent herein. 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings and material placed before it came to the conclusion that as the respondent was in possession of the property in dispute, therefore, he was entitled to an ad interim injunction. Learned trial Court, therefore, granted a temporary injunction retraining the petitioner from dispossessing the respondent herein from the property in dispute except in due process of law. However, the other application of the respondent for restoration of the electricity was refused. The respondent went in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, who came to the conclusion that the respondent herein was in possession of the premises in dispute and, therefore, he was entitled to use the electricity and disconnection thereof would cause an irreparable loss and injury to him. Learned lower Appellate Court also came to the conclusion that plaintiff- respondent herein being in occupation of the premises in question had prima facie a case for restoration of electricity. It was also held by the learned lower Appellate Court that the balance of convenience was also in his favour. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent had shifted from the demised premises to some other place was disbelieved on the ground that the documents placed on record clearly show that the plaintiff-respondent was in possession of the demised premises and he was running the business therefrom. Therefore, it was not open to the petitioner to get the electric connection disconnected. Therefore, it was not open to the petitioner to get the electric connection disconnected. Learned lower Appellate Court has rightly held that it was not open to the Electricity Department-respondent No. 2 herein to disconnect the electricity without verifying the fact that who was the user of the same. In view of this, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order which may call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.