JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral):- Defendant No.1 is before this Court in this appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court whereby while accepting the appeal filed by plaintiff-respondent No.1 against dismissal of his suit by the trial Court, a decree for injunction restraining respondents 2 to 5 from disconnecting the electric connection in dispute and shifting it from its present place to any other place at the instance of appellant, was granted. 2. As per the averments in the civil suit, respondent No.1 obtained an electric connection No.JN 16/0299 from respondents No. 2 to 5 and was regularly making payment of the amount of bills for electricity consumption but the aforesaid respondents were bent upon to shift the meter from its existing place to some other place at the instance of the appellant. Since respondents 2 to 5 had no right to disconnect the electric connection of plaintiff- respondent No.1 or to shift the same necessity arose to file the present suit. 3. Upon notice appellant appeared and filed written statement stating that the portion of the house where the disputed electric meter is installed is not owned by respondent No.1 and the aforesaid two rooms are part of the houses of the appellant. According to the appellant, the aforesaid two rooms were given by the appellant to his parents for their use during their life time. A family partition took place on 21.12.1999 between the parties. The house of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 were pre-existing prior to the family partition and the same were constructed by plaintiff and defendant No.1 with their own funds. A dispute arose between appellant and Gurnam Singh his father Respondent No.1 in connivance with Gurnam Singh filed suit against the appellant for permanent injunction restraining him from dispossessing respondentNo.1 from his house and in the aforesaid suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by respondent No.1,was dismissed and the disputed electric meter was shifted from its original place i.e. from the house of the plaintiff to the rooms owned by the appellant. The disputed electric meter was got installed by the plaintiff in his rooms The plaintiff at his own shifted the disputed electric meter which was illegal and the plaintiff-respondent has got no right to get the electric meter in the premises owned by the appellant. The disputed electric meter was got installed by the plaintiff in his rooms The plaintiff at his own shifted the disputed electric meter which was illegal and the plaintiff-respondent has got no right to get the electric meter in the premises owned by the appellant. Various other legal objections were also raised and dismissal of the suit was prayed. 4. Respondents No. 2 to 5 filed separate joint written statement in which it was admitted that plaintiff-respondent No.1 was their consumer. It was further submitted that the plaintiff-respondent was not the owner of the premises in which the meter in dispute was installed and as per the rules of the Electricity Board, no person is allowed to get the electric connection in the premises of the other person, unless no objection certificate is given by the owner. Since the appellant, applied for removal of the disputed meter from his house, notice was given to the plaintiff-respondent for shifting the electric meter in his own premises and thus the suit was liable to be dismissed. 5. After perusing the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit. However, the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree. While accepting the appeal, the lower Appellate Court found that admittedly the electric connection was in the name of plaintiffrespondent who is the brother of the appellant. Further the ownership of the room where the disputed electric meter is installed is disputed. It is also not in disputed that in Civil suit No.61 dated 19.3.2001, the Civil Court had found that appellant had given two rooms to his father Gurnam Singh and injunction suit could not have been decreed by giving findins on the basis of family partition and since the appellant was alleging family partition he could have sought the possession of the property in dispute and the present suit was not the remedy. 6. Still not satisfied defendant No.1 has filed the instant appeal. 7. Certain facts are not in dispute. The electric connection in dispute is admittedly in the name of the plaintiff-respondent and was installed at its existing place. The appellant is alleging his ownership over the existing place on the basis of family partition between the parties. 6. Still not satisfied defendant No.1 has filed the instant appeal. 7. Certain facts are not in dispute. The electric connection in dispute is admittedly in the name of the plaintiff-respondent and was installed at its existing place. The appellant is alleging his ownership over the existing place on the basis of family partition between the parties. The lower Appellate Court has restrained the appellant as well as respondents No. 2 to 5 from disconnecting the electric connection in dispute and shifting the same from its present place to any other place illegally and forcibly i.e. except in due course of law. Moreover, while passing the aforesaid decree, the lower Appellate Court has also observed that in case appellant files suit for possession on the basis of family partition as alleged by him and in that situation in case any Court comes to the conclusion that electric meter was installed in the property of the appellant this judgment will not bind him. Thus, in the present suit which was a simple suit for permanent injunction, no fault can be found in the relief granted to the plaintiff-respondent. 8. No substantial question of law arises out of this appeal. 9. No merit. Dismissed. -----------0.K.B.0-----------