Dismissed

Jagdeep Singh v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 May 2018RSA/5999/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant filed a regular second appeal against orders dismissing a suit for injunction and a first appeal. The High Court found the original suit was dismissed because the disputed electricity connection had already been physically disconnected and the meter seized. With no merit in the case, the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit and no substantial question of law arose.

Jagdeep Singh Vs Punjab State Power… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

RSA-5999-2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA-5999-2016 Date of Decision: May 22, 2018

Jagdeep Singh

...Appellant

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI

¶11

Present: Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶12

ARUN PALLI, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed by the Trial Court, vide judgment and decree, dated 02.08.2014. As even the appeal preferred against the said decree failed and was dismissed by the Appellate Court, on 21.01.2015, the appellant-plaintiff is in Regular Second Appeal before this Court. The parties to the lis , hereinafter shall be referred to their original positions in the suit.

¶14

The plaintiff prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from disconnecting the electricity connection No. B-94B.R 311267X, illegally/forcibly, installed in the shop of the plaintiff. In brief, the case set out by the plaintiff was that he was running a shop at Bus Stand, Bhairupa, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda. He has been paying the electricity bills regularly against receipts. However, the official of the electricity department demanded money from the plaintiff, and on his refusal to oblige them, they threatened to disconnect his electricity supply.

¶15

In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants, it was Prashant Kapoor 2018.05.23 11:55I attest to the accuracy andpleaded that the plaintiff had three shops at Bus Stand, Bhairupa. Shops authenticity of this document

¶16

RSA-5999-2016

¶17

¶18

Mark-‘A & B’ were let out by the plaintiff, and were on rent with the tenants, whereas shop Mark-‘C’ was in his occupation, in which the disputed connection was installed. An electric wire was passing in front of these shops, and the plaintiff consumed the electricity by committing theft. Resultantly, the Sub Divisional Officer, PSEB, alongwith Mohinder Singh, Junior Engineer, and Sukhmander Singh, Assistant Junior Engineer, checked the spot on 09.04.2010, and having found the plaintiff guilty, served him with a notice, under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. But as he failed to deposit the requisite amount, his electricity connection was disconnected.

¶19

On a consideration of the matter in issue and the evidence on record, both the Courts concurrently concluded that the plaintiff had prayed for a decree for injunction restraining the defendants from causing disconnection of his electricity supply. However, he admitted in his crossexamination that the SDO and other employees of the department had visited his shop, and took away the electricity meter. Therefore, it was established that the electricity connection in question was no longer in existence. The Memo. bearing No. 488, dated 06.05.2010 (Ex.D-1), also showed that the said connection had since been disconnected. Therefore, no injunction could be granted to the plaintiff. Further, this position was duly substantiated even by Mohinder Singh, JE (DW-1), in his deposition.

¶20

On being pointedly asked, learned counsel for the appellantplaintiff could not refer to anything on record to show if the conclusions arrived at by both the courts were either contrary to the position on record or suffered from any material illegality.

¶21

Prashant Kapoor 2018.05.23 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶22

RSA-5999-2016

¶23

¶24

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.

¶25

			(ARUN PALLI) JUDGE
May 22, 2018
Pkapoor	Whether Speaking/Reasoned:	YES /	NO
	Whether Reportable:	YES /	NO

¶26

Prashant Kapoor 2018.05.23 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Jagdeep Singh v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdeep Singh v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Darcl Logistics Ltd. Vs National Insurance Company Limited & Anr.

Paramjit Kaur and Another Vs Amandeep Singh and Others

Daya Nand Vs Dinesh Kumar

Gurmail Singh and Ors. Vs Gursewak Singh

Om Parkash Vs Mahender Singh Yadav

M/S Sundesh Springs Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S P.L. Steel Industries