JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Garg J.:- This is plaintiff’s revision petition challenging the impugned orders of the Courts below whereby his application for ad interim injunction has been rejected. 2. As per the averments made in this petition, petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from installing the electric connection applied by him along with respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the names of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. In the aforesaid suit, petitioner has averred that electric connection was applied by him vide receipt No.107/5734 dated 21.03.1990. On 14.10.2003 he agreed to sell his land to respondent No.6 and received earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on 20.05.2004. Before its execution, respondent No.6 gave a cheque to the petitioner which was not honored by the bank. Petitioner also filed a complaint to the police for taking action against respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and they promised to pay the balance sale consideration to him before sanctioning of the mutation in their favour but the balance amount had not been paid to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has filed the suit submitting that he never sold his electric motor connection. 3. The suit is being contested by the respondents submitting that petitioner himself gave an affidavit dated 25.05.2004 submitting no objection on transfer of electric connection. It was specifically averred that motor connection was sold along with its security in their favour and the mutation of sale of land was already sanctioned in their favour and thus the dismissal of the suit was prayed. 4. Along with this suit, petitioner filed an application for ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from releasing the electric connection during the pendency of the suit. Courts below on consideration of the same rejected the prayer. 5. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has been cheated by respondent Nos. 4 to 6 who have got the sale deed executed in their favour through misrepresentation and the aforesaid sale deed dated 20.05.2004 was null and void and therefore the respondents were not entitled to relase of electric connection in their favour. 4 to 6 who have got the sale deed executed in their favour through misrepresentation and the aforesaid sale deed dated 20.05.2004 was null and void and therefore the respondents were not entitled to relase of electric connection in their favour. If the ad interim injunction is not granted to the petitioner, at this stage, the suit will become infructuous and petitioner would suffer huge loss and irreparable injury which cannot be compensated in any terms later on and his legal rights would be jeopardized. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Admittedly, petitioner had executed the sale deed in question. The dispute is about passing of the sale consideration. However, it is relevant to point out that petitioner himself gave a no objection certificate on 25.05.2004 for transfer of electric connection. The Courts below have also found that there is a recital in the sale deed of selling the electric connection along with the land. Whether any alleged fraud was played on the plaintiff or not is a matter of evidence. At this stage, no ground is made out for grant of ad interim injunction for not transferring the electric connection in favour of respondents. Even otherwise, the petitioner is asking for the relief by way of ad interim injunction which is sought in the main suit itself. Thus, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. However, it is observed that the decision of this revision petition will not be taken as any expression on the merits of the case which shall be decided on its own merits and without prejudice to the rights of the parties. --------------------