IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4115 of 2010 Date of Decision : 2.8.2010 Gulzar Singh ....Petitioner Versus Brij Lal ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Sudhir Pruthi, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.3.2010 by which his prayer under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was partly allowed. The grievance of the petitioner is that he wanted to get a fresh electric connection since the original one had been disconnected. The petitioner is a tenant in the premises. In para 5 of the impugned order it has been observed that the petitioner himself in the eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent against him has admitted that he had not paid the rent of the disputed shop since 1997. It has further been observed that the electric connection was permanently disconnected on 12.3.1998. Noticing these facts the impugned order has been passed restraining the the petitioner from getting a fresh electric connection in the disputed shop till the disposal of the suit. C.R.No.4115 of 2010 -2- I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order as the grant of injunction or declining the same is a discretionary relief based on equity. The petitioner, who has not paid the rent since 1997, does not have any equitable right in his favour and hence the discretion has been rightly exercised by the learned trial Court. Dismissed. 2.8.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss