is not the case of the plaintiff that he is going to install electric poles on the lands of the defendants. It is prayed by the plaintiff that he is going to install electric poles on his land around the boundaries, without affecting the lands of the defendants. If the plaintiff desires to install the electric poles around the boundary of his land in what way, it affects the defendants is not proved. Though defendant No.3 has raised ground that he is not able to cultivate the land for about 5 feet towards the boundaries of his land cannot be accepted, in what way defendant No.3 is precluded to cultivate 5 feet width of his land from the boundary is not conceived the Court. The decree is granted restraining the defendants not to obstruct to the plaintiff to install electric poles on the plaintiff’s land. Therefore, under these circumstances, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is found to be justifiable and correct one. Although, defendant No.3 has not challenged the judgment and decree of the Trial Court before the First Appellate Court and only in this second appeal challenged the same. Therefore, considering the appeal once again and there is no merits
