CR No. 2324 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 2324 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.4.2011. Sarwan Singh .......Petitioner Vs. Jaswinder Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.S.Athwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff Jaswinder Singh has filed a suit for permanent injunction to the effect that defendants be restrained from obstructing the plaintiff from using and operating the electric motor tubewell connection in dispute and from disconnecting the same. Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. Vide the impugned order dated 23.9.2010, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) allowed the application and restrained the defendants from transferring the electric connection installed in joint khata till the final disposal of the case and defendant No.5-petitioner was restrained from allowing the plaintiff to use the electric connection subject to payment of equitable charges for the use of the same. Aggrieved by the said order, defendant No.5-petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the District Judge vide order dated 1.3.2011. Hence, the present petition by the defendant No.5. CR No. 2324 of 2011 (O&M) -2- After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. Both the courts below, after appreciating the record, have held that the electric connection in dispute was installed in a joint khata. The joint khata had not been partitioned by meets and bounds. Although, the electric connection in dispute is in the name of the petitioner but the other co-sharers are also entitled to use the same as the land is still jointly possessed by them. In these circumstances, the learned courts below have rightly restrained the defendants No. 1 to 4 from transferring the electric connection in dispute. Although, in the order dated 23.9.2010 it has been held that “defendant No. 5 is also restrained from the user of electric connection by the plaintiff subject to payment of equitable charges” but it appears that intention of the trial court was that defendant No. 5 is restrained from interfering in the use of electric connection by the plaintiff subject to payment of equitable charges for the use of the same. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed (SABINA) JUDGE April 06, 2011 Gurpreet