C.R. No. 6553 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6553 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: January 29, 2009 Surinder Singh .. Petitioner v. Bikar Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mrs. Anita Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for respondents No. 3 to 5. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the orders, passed by the learned courts below, whereby application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction restraining respondents No.1 and 2 from transferring or shifting the electric tubewell connection in any other name or any other place, was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that Nanta Singh had three sons, namely, Sarwan Singh, Mohan Singh and Bikar Singh. Sarwan Singh had one son Surinder Singh. It is alleged by the petitioner that an agreement was entered into between the brothers for jointly using tubewell connection on 27.2.1994. As respondent No. 1 sought to disturb the use of the tubewell, the suit was filed. In the written statement filed, respondent No. 2- Mohan Singh, one of the brothers , who was also signatory to the agreement, admitted the claim made in the suit in toto. However, the same was contested by respondent No. 1- Bikar Singh. Both the courts below found that the petitioner has not been able to make out a prima facie case for injunction in his favour. C.R. No. 6553 of 2008 [2] Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the patent illegality committed by the learned courts below while passing the impugned order is that the agreement entered into between the parties on 27.2.1994 has not been considered at all, rather, it is recorded that no such document has been produced on record. He further submitted that another fact which has not been given weight by the learned courts below is that Mohan Singh, one of the signatories to the agreement, had admitted the claim made by the petitioner-plaintiff in the suit in toto and the claim was being resisted only by one signatory. Still further, it was submitted that even the officials of Punjab State Electricity Board were also conniving with respondent No. 1 as even after filing of the present petition in this court, the electric connection of the tubewell was disconnected and even the poles were sought to be removed for which the petitioner moved an application before the police authorities. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the claim made by the petitioner in the suit is totally baseless. The interim relief prayed for in the suit cannot, as such, be granted as there is no final relief claimed qua that. In fact, the tubewell was exclusively owned by respondent No. 1 which was installed way back in the year 1977 after raising loan and presently the same having dried up is required to be shifted per force to another place. The petitioner as such does not have any right, title or interest in the tubewell. The agreement, which is sought to be relied upon, is a photo copy only. In fact, the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 have connived with each other. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the present being a dispute between the brothers, firstly should be decided as early as possible. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to direct the learned court below to dispose of the same by the end of the year 2009. As far as grant of interim relief is concerned, in my opinion, though as far as shifting of the tubeweell because of the bore at the existing place having dried up or the water level having gone down, I do not find any reason to interfere with. However, another fact which was brought to the notice of the court at the time of hearing was that shifting is not at a far off place, rather, close to the existing tubewell where even fresh new kotha has also been constructed. Keeping in view the fact that if the petitioner is deprived of the supply of water during pendency of the present suit, his crops may be adversely affected which will not be in the interest of either of the parties and in any case, not in larger public interest. Accordingly, considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, it would C.R. No. 6553 of 2008 [3] be in the interest of justice that the petitioner is also permitted to share water in the tubewell so shifted at the new place with respondent No. 1. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge January 29, 2009 mk