Civil Revision No. 6953 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6953 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 15.11.2011 Nahar Singh ...Petitioner Versus Chief Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, TLSC, Patiala, Distt. Patiala ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. M.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) Challenge is to the order dated 29.08.2011 (Annexure P-4) whereby the trial Court has issued notice of the civil suit i.e plaint dated 29.08.2011 (Annexure P-2) as well as of stay application dated 29.08.2011 (Annexure P-3). Plaintiff/petitioner has filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant i.e Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, TLSC, Patiala from forcibly laying/crossing any electric wire across the agricultural land of the plaintiff/petitioner. After the notice was issued, respondent has sought time to file written statement and for filing reply to the stay application. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 21.11.2011. Thereafter, the respondent through Additional Asstt. Engineer TLSC S/D PSTCL, Patiala gave an application dated 07.11.2011 to the S.H.O Police Station Amargarh mentioning that the petitioner is not allowing them to lay the electric line, to install the tower No. 34. The S.H.O Police Station Amargarh called the petitioner on 08.11.2011 and informed them that they are bound by the orders of the higher authority. Civil Revision No. 6953 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Order dated 29.08.2011 (Annexure P-4) is appealable as per order 43 Rule 1 sub clause r. The trial Court while exercising its powers under Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code could have passed an interim order without notice to the opposite party. Accordingly, this revision is disposed of by giving a direction to the trial Court to decide the stay application (Annexure P-3) on the date fixed i.e 21.11.2011. Till then, the defendant/respondent are restrained from interfering in the suit property, in any manner/peaceful possession of the petitioner/plaintiff and from laying the electric line/tower without due course of law. November 15, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE