Civil Revision No.6048 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6048 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.09.2010 Jasbir Kaur ....Petitioner Versus Bakshish Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order dated 4.6.2010 passed by the learned appellate Court, vide which the application moved by the petitioner, restraining defendant/respondents No.1 and 2 from getting electricity connection to their tubewell, stands declined. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining defendant/respondents No.3 and 4 from releasing electric connection to the tubewell, which is being run by respondents No.1 and 2 with the diesel engine. The learned trial Court allowed the application moved by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that defendant/respondents No.1 and 2 being co-owners of the property, were not entitled to electric connection without no objection from the plaintiff/petitioner. Civil Revision No.6048 of 2010 (O&M) -2- In appeal, the learned appellate Court reversed the finding of the learned trial Court, in view of the fact, that tubewell was already running, where electricity connection was applied for. The defendant/respondents No.1 and 2 were running the tubewell with the help of diesel engine. The learned appellate Court came to the conclusion, that the running of tubewell with diesel engine was more expensive as well as polluting. Therefore, it was in the interest of all, that the electric connection be released to the defendant/respondents, while protecting the right of the petitioner in ordering that defendant/respondents will not be entitled to take any benefit of electricity connection, in the partition proceedings, nor they could claim exclusive possession thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order, on the ground that it was admitted case of the defendant/respondents in the written statement, that electric connection could not be granted without permission from the plaintiff/petitioner. In view of the admission, the learned appellate Court was not justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. In order to succeed in application for injunction, plaintiff/petitioner, was required to prove prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury, which was likely to be caused to the plaintiff/petitioner. The facts and circumstances of the case show that no irreparable loss or injury was likely to be caused to the Civil Revision No.6048 of 2010 (O&M) -3- plaintiff/petitioner, in case the electricity department granted electric connection to defendant/respondents No.1 and 2, to run the tubewell already running. The learned appellate Court, therefore, rightly rejected the application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge September 20, 2010 R.S.