CR No. 7713 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CR No. 7713 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.08.2010 Gurjant Singh ....Petitioner Versus Jeet Singh and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Gurvinder Singh Bhath, Advocate. ... Alok Singh, J. Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning the order dated 4.3.2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ferozepur as well as the order dated 16.11.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, thereby rejecting the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC moved by the plaintiff – petitioner herein. Brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff has filed suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner/consumer in possession of_electric connection bearing Account No.S-1652 (3 Horse Power) CR No. 7713 of 2009 2 installed in land comprising in Rectangle No.126, Killa No.11(8-0), situated in village Shakoor, with consequential relief directing respondents No.2 to 4 to enter the name of the plaintiff as owner/consumer of the above said electric connection and further seeking permanent prohibitory injunction restraining respondents No.2 to 4 from entering the name of_any other person in their record. Alongwith the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from transferring the electric connection in the name of any other person, was also filed. Defendants refuted the claim of the petitioner and also filed reply to the ad interim injunction application. Both the Courts below have recorded that electric connection is recorded in the name of defendant No.1. Electric connection is the property of the Punjab State Electricity Board and none can transfer the electric connection by private contract. Both the Courts below did not find favour with the plaintiff and observed that balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the plaintiff – petitioner and rejected the application seeking ad interim injunction. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that defendant No.1 has agreed to sell the electric connection in favour of the plaintiff – petitioner by way of an affidavit dated 6.6.2000. He further argued that since plaintiff - petitioner is paying electricity bill in respect of the aforesaid electric connection, hence it is not open for the defendants to transfer the electric connection in favour of any other person and defendants No.2 to 4 are duty-bound to record the name of the petitioner over the electric connection in their office records. I have carefully perused the record. Undisputedly, eclectic CR No. 7713 of 2009 3 connection was in the name of defendant No.1. As to whether defendant No.1 ever agreed to transfer the electric connection in favour of the plaintiff by way of an affidavit dated 6.6.2000 is highly disputed. Moreover, no electric connection can be transferred by private contract. It is for the plaintiff – petitioner to apply for a new connection. While exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court ordinarily shall not interfere with the orders passed on the application for ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC unless some manifest error of law or jurisdictional error is pointed out. Moreover, relief of ad interim injunction is a discretionary relief, which can be disturbed only when some glaring mistake or jurisdictional error is found. No illegality or jurisdictional error is pointed out in the impugned orders. Petition is devoid of merit and hence is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 04.08.2010 sk.