Regular Second Appeal No. 2661 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2661 of 2007 Date of decision: April 22, 2008 Bharpur Singh …..APPELLANT Versus Jeet Singh and others …..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate with Mr Madan Sandhu, Advocate for the appellant. T.P.S.MANN, J. Suit for permanent injunction filed by Jeet Singh-respondent was decreed by learned Civil Judge (Jr Division), Mansa on 1.6.2006 and the defendants were restrained from shifting as well as disconnecting his electricity connection and were further directed to restore the same as it was existing at the time of filing the suit. However, the parties were given liberty to get declaration with regard to their right of ownership of the connection. The aforementioned decree was challenged by Bharpur Singh-appellant by filing an appeal, but the same was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Mansa on 9.1.2007. The appellant has, therefore, filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Regular Second Appeal No. 2661 of 2007 -2- The case of Jeet Singh plaintiff was that he had taken land of Bharpur Singh-defendant on lease for agricultural purposes and there was already an electricity connection installed in the name of the appellant on the said land. Later-on, the defendant submitted an affidavit dated 25.2.1997 and agreed for transfer of the connection in favour of the plaintiff. Since then the plaintiff had been using the connection for irrigating the land. He had been making payment of the electricity tariff regularly, but the defendant-appellant in connivance with the officials of the Electricity Board managed to get the document returned to himself, so as to forfeit the right of the plaintiff to have the connection transferred in his name. The plaintiff, accordingly, filed the suit for the grant of permanent injunction so as to restrain the defendants from shifting the connection. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff by controverting all the allegations levelled in the plaint. They prayed for dismissal of the suit. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant submitted that his client was not given sufficient opportunity to adduce his evidence. He, accordingly, prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment and decree and for remitting the matter to the trial Court for a fresh decision, after allowing an opportunity to him to lead evidence in support of his plea. As is available on the record, the evidence of the plaintiff Regular Second Appeal No. 2661 of 2007 -3- was closed on 5.4.2006. The defendants were then granted four opportunities to lead their evidence but they failed to produce any evidence. Although it is a fact that a statement was suffered only on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Chairman and Sub Divisional Officer of the Electricity Board on 4.5.2006 to close their evidence and no such statement was made on behalf of the defendant-appellant, yet no objection was raised on behalf of the defendant-appellant regarding posting of the matter for arguments on 10.5.2006. Even thereafter the matter was adjourned for arguments on several occasions. The defendant-appellant had been represented by his counsel on all those hearings, but no request was ever made or objection raised that he had not been allowed sufficient opportunity to lead his evidence. If a party itself is not vigilant and allows the proceedings to move further, it cannot be now heard saying that adequate opportunity had not been granted to it for producing the evidence. It is then contended that defendant-appellant had never consented to the transfer of the electricity connection in favour of the plaintiff. Moreover, the plaintiff has not lead any evidence that it was he who was using the electricity connection and paying the tariff for the same. Therefore, no case was made out for the grant of permanent injunction to the plaintiff. Affidavit Ex.P-2 claimed to have been executed by the defendant-appellant is available on the file. This affidavit was made the basis by the plaintiff for making an application Ex.P-3 to the Electricity Regular Second Appeal No. 2661 of 2007 -4- Board for transferring the connection in his favour. The defendant- appellant has nowhere pleaded that he had not executed any such affidavit Ex.P-2, nor he has denied his signatures on the same. Learned lower Courts have given concurrent findings of fact that affidavit Ex.P-2 had been validly executed by the defendant-appellant so as to enable the plaintiff-respondent to get the electricity connection transferred in his favour. These findings are based on the evidence led by the plaintiff, which cannot be disturbed in a second appeal. Moreover, the plaintiff has also brought on record pass books Ex.P-1 and P-1/A and receipts Ex.P-6 to P-10 and P-14 to P-26. All these documents clearly show that the electricity connection was being used by the plaintiff-respondent un- interruptedly and it was he, who was making payment of the electricity tariff regularly. In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the concurrent findings of facts. No such substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellant, arise for determination. The appeal is devoid of any merit and, is, therefore, dismissed. April 22, 2008 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE