IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.2552/2009 Date of Decision: 5.5.2009. Raj Kumar Bajaj ..........Petitioner. Versus Bahadur Chand Bajaj and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. A.S.Chahal,Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). Petitioner is pitted against his brother and his family members (respondents herein) in a suit for mandatory injunction. The petitioner is in possession of ground floor whereas respondents are in possession of the Top Floor of H.No.3196 Sector 27-D,Chandigarh. The prayer made in the suit is for directing the defendants-respondents to remove the articles lying under the stair case of the house in question and not to place any article there in future. Alongwith the suit petitioner also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC. Upon notice of the suit, respondents filed written statement and reply to the suit as well as application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC. Besides that, respondents also moved an application under Section 151 CPC for restoration of water connection and installation of a water tank and electric motor, which according to respondents has forcibly and unauthorisedly been removed by the petitioner. Petitioner filed reply to this CR NO.2552/2009 2 application objecting to the said prayer for restoration of water connection etc. The learned trial Court after hearing both sides, vide impugned order dated 1.4.2009, allowed the application and directed the petitioner plaintiff to allow the respondents-defendants to install necessary infrastructure required for restoring water supply to them. It is this order which is subject matter of the present revision petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that possession of the respondents over the top floor of the house in question is legal. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondents are entitled to water supply, which is a basic need of every living thing. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to make out any legal and valid ground on which respondents can be denied the right to have a water connection/supply. The impugned order, viewed from any angle, in my considered opinion does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No merit. Dismissed. 5.5.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge