Judgment L.N. MITTAL, J. Plaintiffs, who were successful in the trial court, but have been non-suited by the lower appellate court, have filed this second appeal. Plaintiffs/appellants filed suit against respondents/defendants. Defendants no.1 to 3 (respondents no.3 to 5) are officials of Power Utility. Defendant no.4 – Baru Ram (respondent no.1 herein) is the main contesting private defendant. Respondent no.2 – Gram Panchayat was defendant no.5 in the trial court. Plaintiffs sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from releasing electricity connection for tubewell of defendant no.4 in khasra no.22 and in khasra nos. 3 to 5. At the outset, counsel for the appellants states that in the instant second appeal, plaintiffs/appellants do not press their claim regarding khasra nos.3 to 5. As regards khasra no.22, the plaintiffs alleged that the same is land of Gram Panchayat – defendant no.5, and therefore, defendant no.4 has no right to seek electricity connection in the said land. Defendant no.4 alleged that land of khasra no.22 is not of Gram Panchayat, but is of Mushtarka Malkan and he is also one of the Proprietors. Defendant no.4 alleged that he is in exclusive possession of the said land of khasra no.22 as owner, and therefore, he has right to get electricity tubewell connection in the said land. The trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. However, first appeal preferred by defendant no.4 has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, and thereby, suit filed by the plaintiffs stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed this second appeal. I have heard counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Counsel for the appellants contended that suit relating to khasra no.22 has been instituted by the plaintiffs under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure and defendant n o.4 has no right to instal tubewell in the said land, which belongs to Gram Panchayat. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but the same cannot be accepted. Plaintiff no.2 – Satbir Singh, while appearing as PW-1, admitted that defendant no.4 is in possession of the disputed land and has already installed a borewell therein. In this view of the matter, injunction cannot be granted against grant of electricity connection for tubewell/borewell of defendant no.4 already installed in the disputed land, particularly because the said land is in his possession. In this view of the matter, injunction cannot be granted against grant of electricity connection for tubewell/borewell of defendant no.4 already installed in the disputed land, particularly because the said land is in his possession. No harm would be caused to the plaintiffs if electricity connection is granted for the said tubewell. On the other hand, defendant no.4 would suffer irreparable loss and injury if the electricity connection is not granted because he would be deprived of the facility of irrigating the said land with borewell/tubewell. On the other hand, if and when defendant no.4 is ejected from the said land, he may either get his connection disconnected or may leave it then and there, but the plaintiffs or anybody else would not suffer any loss or injury if the electricity connection subsists during the period the said land remains in possession of defendant no.4. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find no justification for grant of any injunction regarding electricity connection for tubewell in the disputed land of khasra no.22. Suit of the plaintiffs has been rightly dismissed by the lower appellate court. Impugned judgment of the lower appellate court does not suffer from any perversity or illegality nor the same is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the said finding of the lower appellate court for dismissing the suit. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. The appeal lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed.