^^SSSiSsS^m'iSSK' B|P| IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SecondAppeal No.^9-1 of 2006 Si0{ 4 Appellant Plaintiff Versus Respondents 'Defendants m ^f^y Tj^y /^\y /%>^ .<.^ ^/- ? ^ 2. ..^" ^ ? 4. ^' Vikas Chaudhari, S/o Late Sonaji Chaudhari, R/o Behind Sahu Saw Mill, Pandari, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Gudiyari Raipur (C.G.) Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board C/o President Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Daganiya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Superintendent Engineer Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Vidyut Mandal Nagar Vrit Nayapara Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) SECQND APPEAL UNDER SECTION I'OO QFTHECODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ^p &D p- i4' IV?. i(^ le^Bench: H^n'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra iGfind Apoeal No.471 of 2006 Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board and others Postfor 11 -Q2-20- Sd//- PrashantKumarMishra Judge <1 versus Vikas Chaudhari cutive Engineer, Chhattisgarh :!ectricity Board and others Shri S.C.Verma, counsel for the appeilant. Shri Brijesh Singh, Advocate appears on behalfof ShriA.S.GahanA/ar, counsel for tht Second Appeai under Section 1 00 of the Code of Civi! Procedure (Passed on (l-fk February, 2010) >r Sectfor tko r' The present second appe; has been preferred by the p!aintiff, whose suit for declaration and mandatory' injunction has been dismissed by both the '^1 i^l i .l-S.'l 2. The case of the plaintiff, in short, is that he is owner of the !and mkar Naaar bearina Khasra No.992/1 area 0.06 hectare si !aif3ur and is in possession thereof. He is raisin< construction of his house on the said- iand, however, the defendants, wifhout intimation So him, have ini lectric pole on his land making ire of ai ;onstruction of his house. Compiaint made to the Superintending Engineer has not been paid heea' to, necessitating service of Segal ^ 8a <aa '•6, g 1 ^ ^•^'J ''•-^. 'fT'^y' 2-— lotice, and thereafter the present suit (Civil Suit No.38-A/2005) is 3. The defendants denied the plainS averments and stated that the ic pole has not been InstaHed in the plaintiffs !and and in the spot inspection conducted on 21-2-2003, it was found that neither the supporting wire is installed in the plaintiffs ity is goina on over the piai The defendants have installed the eiectric oole for connectin 33 K.V.A. line from Birgaon to Shankar Nagar and h^chna {o Shankar Nagar, vvhich is an act in public interest, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any decree of possession and mandatory jnjunction. Soth the parties led evidence and at the end trial, t'm iearned tria! Court found that the plaintiff has faiied to prove that the supporting v»'irehas been installed in his land. The firsf appellate Court, by the impugned judgment and decree dated 13-7-2006 in Civil Appeal No.3-A/2006, rejected the appeal as we!l as the appel!anVplaintiffs application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellate Court has a!so found that to prove, his case the plaintiff has not examined any independent witness except himself. !t has been observed by both the Courts belovi/ *k-»t t lat the plaintiff has not made any effort to get his land demarcated for ascertaining as to whether the sypporting 'wire has been instalted in his land. Both the Courts below have also found that the plaintiff has not produced any document regarding \^r anction of building pian from the icipal Corporation or the concerned Gram Panchayat. Referring to W'M jl j SK.^^gvi ~ s~ the important portion of the piaintiffs statement, She learned trial Court is observs the plaintiff has ^IU! Ss^Sedtt land, the boundaries have not been mentioned and fron" the saie-deed, he cannot indicate as to on which the supporting wire has been instailsd and he has not sought for any Patvvari report or demarcation report nor any other ora!. evidence or documentar/ ividence has been led by the plaintiff to prove his case. 6. In view of the concurrent flndings recorded by the Courts below to the effect that the plaintiff has faiied to prove that the supposling wire finds Shat it has no jurisdiction to ss of fsct recorded bv the ir, his 1< 'fere with th ic vvitti tfie ^iwii, ; El*l^'> 7. The plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any substantia! question of aw for det this sppeal, therefore, the present second ippea! under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. Sdil- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge