Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This revision-petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order dated 15.06.2009, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridkot, vide which it dismissed the application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2009, rendered by the Court of I/C District Judge, Faridkot, vide which, it dismissed the appeal, has been filed by the revision-petitioner. 2. The plaintiff claimed himself to be the owner in possession of the land, in question. It was stated that the land of defendant no.4 is situated on the northern side of his land. It was further stated that electricity was being supplied by defendant nos. 1 to 3,5 and 6 from the residential area of the village towards western side of the land of the plaintiff. It was further stated that defendant nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 6 in connivance with defendant no.4, were bent upon erecting the electric poles and passing the electric wires, through the field of the plaintiff, from point X towards the southern side of his land for giving supply of electricity to him (defendant no.4), although there was another short route to give the said supply from point X towards the western side of his land. Accordingly, the defendants were asked so many times, not to do so, but all in vain. Ultimately, a suit for permanent injunction was filed. 3. Alongwith the suit, an application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for interim injunction was filed, which was dismissed by the trial Court, vide order dated 15.06.2009. 4. Defendants-respondents No.1 to 3 contested the suit as also the application by way of filing their joint written statement as also reply to the application, wherein, they stated that the Punjab State Electricity Board had launched a scheme for giving 24 hours electric supply to the Dhanis/Bastis, on urban pattern, having cluster of five or more houses under D.S. Division, PSEB, Faridkot, Kotkapura etc. It was sanctioned by the competent authority, from 11 KV City Feeder, Burj Harika, by giving a connection, to Bant Singh, defendant no.4, and others. It was further stated that, as per the sanctioned scheme, 19 poles had already been installed. It was sanctioned by the competent authority, from 11 KV City Feeder, Burj Harika, by giving a connection, to Bant Singh, defendant no.4, and others. It was further stated that, as per the sanctioned scheme, 19 poles had already been installed. The main line approximately 1.9 KM long had already been erected and only three poles remain to be installed to start the electric supply to the cluster of houses. It was further stated that the work was being carried out, as per the sanctioned scheme. It was further stated that no irreparable loss will be caused to the plaintiff, on account of erection of electric poles, in his land. It was further stated that neither any prima facie case, nor balance of convenience lay in his favour. 5. Defendant No. 5 and 6 took up the same pleas, as were taken up by defendant nos. 1 to 3 in their written statement. 6. Defendant no.4, in his written statement, as also reply to the stay application, took up the same stand, as was taken up by defendant nos. 1 to 3 in their written statement. 7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the record, the trial Court dismissed the application. 8. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff, which was also dismissed by the Appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 07.07.2009. 9. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the plaintiff/revision petitioner. 10. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and have gone through the documents, on record carefully. 11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that, if the poles are erected in the field of the plaintiff(now revision-petitioner), irreparable loss will be caused to him. It was further submitted that the Officers of the Punjab Electricity Board were intentionally erecting the poles, in his land, by following a long route, instead of following the shortest route, as per the instructions. He further submitted that the Courts below illegally dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the plaintiff (now revision petitioner). 12. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. 12. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The Punjab State Electricity Board, has been erecting the poles and laying the electric wires, in accordance with the sanctioned scheme in the larger interest of the villagers, with a view to ensure 24 hours electric supply, to the Dhanis and Bastis. Undisputedly, the Punjab State Electricity Board is empowered under the relevant provisions of law, to erect poles and lay lines, in the fields of any private person. The only remedy with such a private person, in whose land, the electric poles are erected and electric wires are passed, is to get compensation from the said Authority. It is evident from the record that under the Scheme, as many as 19 electric poles have already been erected and only three poles are to be erected, in the land of the plaintiff. The Courts below were, thus, right in holding that neither there was any prima facie case, in favour of the plaintiff-revision petitioner, as he had got no legal right, to obstruct the erection of poles by the aforesaid Board, in his land, nor irreparable loss shall be caused to him, as he would be duly compensated by way of payment of compensation, for the use of his land, for erection of poles and passing of electric wires, nor any balance of convenience, lay in his favour, but on the other hand, it lay in favour of the Punjab State Electricity Board as the supply of electricity will be made by erecting the poles, for 24 hours to the Dhanis and Bastis. The orders of the Courts below, therefore, are neither illegal nor suffer from any material irregularity nor perversity and, therefore, the same do not warrant any interference, by this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13 For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed.