Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 535 (PNJ)

Gurmukh Singh v. Gurdev Singh

2012-04-03

L.N.MITTAL

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) - CM No.9064-CII of 2012 Allowed as prayed for. Main Case Defendant No.1 Gurmukh Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning judgment dated 02.01.2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur. 2. Respondents No.1 to 3/plaintiffs have filed suit against defendant No.1-petitioner and proforma respondents No.4 and 5 as defendants No.2 and 3 (Sub-Divisional Officer and Punjab State Power Supply Corporation Ltd.). Plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 are sons of Bhagwan Singh whereas plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are sons of Gurcharan Singh son of Bhagwan Singh. 3. Plaintiffs’ case is that the disputed tubewell bearing electric connection No.AP 04/655 in the name of defendant No.1 has been obtained jointly by plaintiffs and defendant No.1 for irrigation of their joint land and the parties have been accordingly irrigating their joint land from the said tubewell. Load of the tubewell motor was also got increased form 5 BHP to 10 BHP from joint funds of plaintiffs and defendants No.1. They have 1/4th share each in the tubewell and its connection. Defendant No.1 threatened to get the tubewell and electric connection transferred/shifted with assistance of defendants No.2 and 3. The plaintiffs accordingly sought permanent injunction restraining defendants No.2 and 3 from disconnecting, shifting or transferring the aforesaid tubewell/electric connection on the request of defendant No.1. Temporary injunction to the same effect was claimed during pendency of the suit. 4. Defendant No.1 controverted the version of the plaintiff and pleaded that he is sole owner of the electric connection and tubewell in question and has been exclusively using the same. It was he who got the load enhanced from 5BHP to 10 BHP by spending entire amount. He has right to get the electric connection disconnected or shifted to some other place. Plaintiffs have no right, title or interest therein. 5. Defendants No.2 and 3 also controverted the averments of the plaintiffs and pleaded that the electric connection stands in the name of defendant No.1 and, therefore, he is at liberty to get it disconnected or shifted to other place. It was also alleged that on checking on 20.05.2011, it was found that plaintiff No.3 was running motor of 15 BHP illegally by taking supply from transformer of one Santa Singh. 6. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur vide order dated 02.08.2011 dismissed the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction. It was also alleged that on checking on 20.05.2011, it was found that plaintiff No.3 was running motor of 15 BHP illegally by taking supply from transformer of one Santa Singh. 6. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur vide order dated 02.08.2011 dismissed the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction. However, appeal against the said order preferred by plaintiffs has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur vide impugned judgment dated 02.01.2012 and thereby plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction has been allowed and defendants No.2 and 3 have been restrained from disconnecting or transferring the disputed electric connection and from shifting it to any other place and defendant No.1 has been restrained from causing any hindrance in use of the electric connection by the plaintiffs as per their share, during pendency of the suit. Feeling aggrieved, defendant No.1 has filed this revision petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 8. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the electric connection stands in the name of defendant No.1-petitioner and therefore, he is entitled to get it disconnected or shifted to some other place and temporary injunction has been erroneously granted by the lower appellate Court. Reliance has been placed on judgment of this Court in the case of Uttam Singh versus Sohan Singh reported as, [2010(4) Law Herald (P&H) 2709] : 2010(4) CivCC 860. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention but find myself unable to accept the same. As noticed herein above, plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are sons and grand sons of Bhagwan Singh. In jamabandi they are depicted to be joint owners as well as in joint possession of the suit land including khasra No.75 in which the disputed tubewell and electric connection stand installed. In view of these circumstances, it cannot be prima facie said at this stage that defendant No.1 is sole owner of the tubewell and electric connection in question. On the other hand, the joint land is shown to be irrigated by this tubewell. Defendant No.1 pleaded that plaintiffs have other electric connection and tubewell for irrigating their land but defendant No.1 failed to place any material on record to substantiate the same. He did not give even electric connection number thereof or khasra number of the land where the said tubewell is installed. 9. Defendant No.1 pleaded that plaintiffs have other electric connection and tubewell for irrigating their land but defendant No.1 failed to place any material on record to substantiate the same. He did not give even electric connection number thereof or khasra number of the land where the said tubewell is installed. 9. In addition to the aforesaid, application for increasing the load of the disputed electric connection from 5 BHP to 10 BHP was made by Himmat Singh plaintiff No.3 and copy of the said application was shown to the lower appellate Court. It again depicts that plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are prima facie joint owners and joint users of the disputed tubewell and electric connection. 10. Judgment in the case of Uttam Singh (supra) has no applicability to the facts of the instant case. In the reported case, on the basis of evidence led by the parties, while finally deciding the lis, it was found proved that defendant was exclusive owner of the electric motor, electric connection and bore/well. In the instant case, however, prima facie defendant No.1 at this stage cannot be said to be exclusive owner of the disputed tube well and electric connection for reasons recorded hereinbefore. 11. As a necessary consequence of the discussion aforesaid, I find that temporary injunction has been rightly granted to the plaintiffs by the lower appellate Court. Impugned judgment of the lower Court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is completely meritless and is, therefore, dismissed in limine. 12. However, nothing observed herein before shall be taken to be expression of opinion on merits of the suit. It may also be added that the plaintiffs shall pay proportionate amount of bills of the electric connection including expenses of repair and maintenance of the disputed tubewell for user thereof. ---------0.B.S.0------------