Civil Rev. 4703 of 2007 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH Civil Rev. 4703 of 2007 Date of decision: 17.8.2009 Harmesh Lal Petitioner vs Satwinder Kaur & ors Respondent Present Mr. RK Dadwal, Advocate Mr. PK Chugh, Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for respondent No.3 M.M.S.BEDI,J. The plaintiff- petitioner has filed this petition against the orders dated 23.8.2005 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.D) Hoshiarpur and dated 16.7.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur dismissing his application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for restraining the defendant- respondents from shifting/ disconnecting the electric connection No.557 and from obstructing / operating the joint tube-well of the plaintiff installed in Khasra No.19/3, khewat No.315, Khatuni No.339 and also for restraining defendant- respondents 1 and 2 from blocking the passage at point A and B. Learned counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner has laid much emphasis on the sale deed dated 28.7.1997, Annexure P-2, which indicates that Bud Raj, Baldev Raj, and Shakunta Devi, co-sharers with the plaintiff, had sold their share in the joint land to the defendants wherein it was specifically stipulated that the land along with all rights and title of every type, including passage, trees and share in the tube-well was Civil Rev. 4703 of 2007 2 sold to defendants 1 and 2, to contend that it was share in the tube-well water, which was also sold to the defendant-respondents 1 and 2. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submit that the electric connection in the name of Baldev Raj was also transferred to the defendants 1 and 2 as it stands installed in Khasra No.19/3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In order to determine whether the plaintiff- petitioner has got prima facie right in the electric connection, which was obtained in the name of his co-sharer Baldev Raj and whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner or that he will suffer an irrepairable loss, it will be required to be determined on the basis of evidence on the basis of interpretation of the sale deed if the plaintiff has got a right in the electric connection, the same being joint connection. The suit was filed in the year 2005. A period of four years has elapsed. The parties are still fighting on the interim injunction application. Learned counsel for the parties are not aware of the stage of suit before the trial court. In the said circumstances, this petition is dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months after the next date of hearing before it. In case, the plaintiff-petitioner has not completed his evidence, he will do so within a period of two months after the next date of hearing. Similarly, the defendant-respondents will also complete their evidence within a period of three months thereafter. The trial court will give short dates so that the case can be finally adjudicated upon and the rights of the parties are determined. August 17 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE Civil Rev. 4703 of 2007 3