Jagjeet Singh Vs Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Others

Through the instant writ petiti o n, cast under Articles 226/227 of the Constit u tion of India, a prayer is made for issuance of a writ in the nat u re of certior a ri, seeking quashing of i n terim order dated 21.01.2 0 25 (Annexure P-5), passed by the respon d ent No.3, whereby, the lear n ed Permanent Lok Adalat concerned, while entertaining the application filed under Secti o n 22(c) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, filed by t he respondent No.2, had directed the dist r ibution licencee, to release t he electricity c onnection to the premises of t h e respondent No.2, upon fulfill i ng the require m ents, within 10 days from the d a te of passing of the order.

¶12

The petitioner has approached t his Court, fetching grievance fr o m the order (supra), on the ground that th e petitioner is a co-sharer in t he property, a n d has already filed a civil sui t , wherethrough, the learned C i vil Court conc e rned, has granted the interim in j unction in favour of the petitio n er,

¶13

MANPREET SINGH 2025.03.28 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶14

CWP-8064-2025

¶15

and despite that, the order (supra), has been passed. He further submits that his application for impleadment, by the learne d Permanent Lok Adalat concerned, has not bee n entertained and the impugned o rder has been passed. 3. This Court has considered the submissions made by the lear n ed counsel for the petitioner. 4. This Court has examined the interim injunction order da t ed 22.11.2024, granted in favour of the pres e nt petitioner, by the learned C i vil Court conc e rned. However, this Court do e s not find the same to be lend i ng any vigour to the submissions, as mad e by the learned counsel for t he petitioner. T he learned Civil Court conc e rned, at the time to granting t he interim inj u nction, has granted the libe r ty to the defendants therein, to construct only to the extent of their sh a re in the suit property, and t he constructio n was made subject to the final outcome of the partit i on - proceeding s . The relevant part of the order ( supra), is extracted hereinafter :

¶16

“14. Accordingly, ad - interim injunction is passed in favour of the plainti ff s and against the defendants restraining the defenda n ts, from raising any construct i on or changing the nature of the property in question till the disposal of the suit. Ho w ever, it is hereby clarified that t he defendants are entitled to construct only to the exten t of their share in the suit p r operty which would, of course, be subject to final outcome of the partition proceedings. 15. Ergo, the applicatio n under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Co d e stands allowed and for the s a ke of clarity it is relevant t o state here that any observati o ns made herein are only for the purposes of the present application and would n ot have any bearing on the fi n al outcome of the suit or m erits of the suit. Now to come up on 22.01.2025 for frami n g the issues.”

¶17

In the instant case, if the p etitioner/respondents have rai s ed

¶18

MANPREET SINGH 2025.03.28 18:19I attest to the accuracy and5. authenticity of this order/judgment

¶19

CWP-8064-2025

¶20

constructio n , to the extent of their own sha r e, then naturally, they are entit l ed for the elec t ricity connection. At this stage , learned counsel for the petitio n er is unable to point out from the record that t h e respondents have constructe d in the suit property, beyond their share. Since the dispute is pend i ng adjudicatio n , before the learned Permanen t Lok Adalat concerned, theref o re, this Court, refrains itself from making a n y observation with regard to t he entitlement of the respondent No.2, to hav e new electricity connection, as t he same is yet t o be finally adjudicated.

¶21

The second grievance raise d by the petitioner is that his miscellane o us application, preferred before the learned Permanent Lok Ad a lat concerned, h as not been entertained, theref o re, a direction be passed upon t he learned Pe r manent Lok Adalat concerne d , to entertain the miscellane o us application.

¶22

This Court finds merit in th e second prayer, as made by t he learned co u nsel for the petitioner, and th e refore, the instant writ petitio n is disposed of , with a direction upon the learned Permanent Lok Ad a lat concerned, to entertain the miscellaneous application, so preferred by t he petitioner, a nd to adjudicate the same withi n the ambit of law. 8. However, considering the fac t that this Court does not find a ny perversity o r illegality in the order, requir i ng any interference, therefore, t he impugned order is hereby ordered to be mai n tained. 9. Ordered accordingly.

¶23

(KULDEEP TIWARI)

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

March 24, 2 025 Manpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶26

MANPREET SINGH 2025.03.28 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Jagjeet Singh v. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagjeet Singh v. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vipin Kumar as Contractor Vs State of Haryana and Others

Jaya Sehgal Vs State of Haryana and Others

Chandan Panesar Vs Haryana State Pharmacy Council, Haryana through Its Chairman and Another

Kumari Upasana and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

M/S Rathee Industries Vs State of Haryana and Others

Jitender Mandal Vs State of Haryana and Others