This appeal, filed by the defendant who unsuccessfully sought permanent injunction against electricity connection shift, was dismissed. The bench upheld the lower courts' finding that the plaintiff exclusively used the connection for irrigation based on a 1978 agreement.
Stay of decree dismissing appeal against permanent injunction dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
vinod kumar 2014.05.27 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
RSA No.1758 of 2012 (O&M)
[ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1758 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:20.05.2014
Kuldip Singh
...Appellant
Versus
Janak Raj and others
...Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. H.S.Dhandi, Advocate, for the appellant. *****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J .
This appeal is filed by defendant no.1.
The plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction to restrain the
defendants from shifting/transferring electricity connection bearing A/C No.KN-489 of 3 BHP from Khasra No.15//25 to some other place. The suit was decreed. Defendant no.1 challenged the decree of the Trial Court, but his appeal was dismissed and, thus, he has come to this Court in this second appeal.
Counsel for the appellant has submitted that Khasra No.15//25 is still joint holding of the parties and, thus, no injunction can be granted. However, it has been found by the Courts below that there was a writing/agreement dated 12.10.1978 by which two wells were allocated to Des Raj, whereas electricity connection in dispute came to the share of the plaintiff who has been put into possession over the same and the correctness
vinod kumar 2014.05.27 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh [ 2 ]
RSA No.1758 of 2012 (O&M)
*********
of the said agreement was never contested by defendant no.1 so much so he had admitted that the agreement was acted upon and the parties were put in possession of separate chunks of land as per the said agreement. He also admitted that the plaintiff is irrigating his land by using the said electricity connection. The pass-book is in possession of the plaintiff, whereas the electricity bills Ex.P4 to Ex.P46 have also been paid by the plaintiff as against defendant no.1 who could produce only 3 bills of the year 1989. Defendant no.1 has also admitted to have installed another electricity connection in the land in his possession and admitted that the plaintiff has no other source of irrigation except the electricity connection in question. All these facts cumulatively conclude that the agreement Ex.P1 was acted upon in letter and spirit and the plaintiff has been using the electricity connection in dispute exclusively for irrigation of his land.
Consequently, in view of the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below and in the absence of any question of law much-less substantial, I do not find any merit in the present appeal.
Dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE
May 20, 2014 vinod*
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal against the decree of permanent injunction has any merit in light of findings regarding separate possession and usage of electricity for irrigation.
Kuldip Singh
Janak Raj
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
