Karam Singh Vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Nigam Ltd. Kaithal — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Karam Singh Vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Nigam Ltd. Kaithal — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision petition disposed of without restoring the interim mandatory injunction; the trial Court is directed to make sincere endeavors for expeditious disposal of the pending suit, preferably within a period of one year.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner was entitled to an interim mandatory injunction for restoration of the tubewell electricity connection, i.e., whether the trial Court's order granting temporary mandatory injunction should stand notwithstanding its reversal by the First Appellate Court.

Court's answer

An order directing interim mandatory injunction is to be passed only in rare and exceptional circumstances where the plaintiff proves a strong prima facie case.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner failed to show that the electricity connection was ever restored in 2019 and was thereafter disconnected on 17.02.2022.

Key takeaways

It is not appropriate to assume continuation of the electric connection merely because invoices reflecting that no payment was due were issued to the petitioner.ratio¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Temporary mandatory injunction — restoration of electricity connection — Punjab & Haryana High Court (Justice Anil Kshetarpal, oral decision, 06.05.2025): An order of interim mandatory injunction is warranted only in rare and exceptional circumstances where the plaintiff proves a strong prima facie case. Petitioner Karam Singh (suit of 05.07.2022) claimed his tubewell connection ran till February 2022 and that bills showed nothing due; respondent Uttar Haryana Bijli Nigam Limited, Kaithal asserted the connection stood discontinued in 2016-17 for non-payment, that the 2019 deposit of Rs.13,380/- under a scheme never resulted in restoration, and that nothing was paid after 26.11.2019. Finding the petitioner unable to show the connection was restored in 2019 and re-disconnected on 17.02.2022, and holding that invoices reflecting no dues cannot evidence a live connection, the Court disposed of the revision petition (trial Court's grant having been reversed by the First Appellate Court) and directed the trial Court to expedite disposal of the pending suit, preferably within one year.

CR-2326-2024 (O&M)

-1-

128 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR-2326-2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 06.05.2025

Karam Singh

...Petitioner

Vs.

Uttar Haryana Bijli Nigam Limited, Kaithal ...Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present: Mr. Dhananjay Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Baldev Raj Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Sh. Arvind Seth, AAG, Haryana. Ms. Nikita Goel, Advocate Ms. Harshita Dhanda, Advocate and Mr. Shubham Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (Oral)

The petitioner herein has filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction directing the respondents to restore electricity connection of his tubewell alongwith an application for grant of temporary mandatory injunction, which was allowed by the trial Court but was set aside by the First Appellate Court. While filing the suit on 05.07.2022, he claims that his electricity connection was disconnected on 17.02.2022 without issuance of mandatory notice of 15 days. On the other hand, the Electricity Supply Company claimed that the electricity connection was discontinued in the year 2016-17 for nonpayment of dues. In the year 2019, the plaintiff did deposit Rs.13,380/- under a scheme, however, his connection was never restored. He also has not paid any

NEERAJ 2025.05.09 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-2326-2024 (O&M)

-2-

amount after 26.11.2019.

The trial Court granted temporary mandatory injunction, which as already noticed is reversed by the Appellate Court.

Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper-book.

Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the electricity connection remained active till February, 2022 and the petitioner would have deposited the amount if there was demand for the same. He submits that he was being issued bill reflecting that no payment is due.

Per contra , learned counsel representing the respondent submits that the electricity connection was dis-connected in the year 2016-17 and the amount deposited by the petitioner in the year 2019 did not result in restoration of electricity connection. It is submitted that by way of interim order, the plaintiff's suit could not be decreed.

This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the parties.

The order directing interim mandatory injunction is required to be passed in rare and exceptional circumstances where the plaintiff proves a strong prima facie case. In this case, the petitioner has failed to show that the electricity connection was ever restored in the year 2019 and was thereafter, dis-connected on 17.02.2022. The suit was filed on 05.07.2022. It is not appropriate to assume continuation of electric connection only because there was some invoices issued to the petitioner reflecting that the payment is not due. Moreover, the suit filed by the petitioner is pending.

NEERAJ 2025.05.09 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-2326-2024 (O&M)

-3-

Keeping in view the facts of the case, the trial Court is directed to make sincere endeavors for expeditious disposal of the same, preferably within a period of one year.

The revision petition is disposed of.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.

(ANIL KSHETARPAL) 06.05.2025 JUDGE neeraj

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No

NEERAJ 2025.05.09 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document