Civil Revision No. 5259 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5259 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.08.2010 Shri Chand ....Petitioner Versus Pawan Kumar and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. B.K. Bagri, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5.8.2010, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rewari, vide which the application moved by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, restraining the defendant/respondents from getting electricity connection, has been declined. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the electricity department from issuing a tubewell connection to the defendant/respondents, on the ground that no permission of the petitioner, had been obtained before applying for electricity connection. The stand of the plaintiff/petitioner further was, that defendant/respondents had already sold more than their share of land, and to claim possession of the better portion of the land were trying to get electricity connection. The defendant/respondents wanted to take advantage in the pending partition proceedings. Civil Revision No. 5259 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Learned lower appellate Court recorded a finding, that there is no bar under the Electricity Act or the sale circular, to grant of electricity connection, to a co-owner without the consent of other co-owner, and dismissed the application for injunction. The learned lower appellate Court held, that there was no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner, nor was he likely to suffer irreparable loss if the electricity connection was sanctioned/allowed to the defendant/respondents. The apprehension of the petitioner, that grant of electricity connection to the defendant/respondents would given them advantage in partition proceedings is mis-conceived as mere grant of electricity connection to the co-owner in a joint land, cannot be taken as a proof of possession in the partition proceedings, as the partition proceedings will be decided as per quality of land. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 30, 2010 R.S.