IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.3012 of 2010 Date of decision: 7.5.2010 Sudesh .....Petitioner vs. Gaje Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.R.S.Longia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the impugned orders dated 11.1.2010 and 26.4.2010 whereby her application for grant of ad interim injunction was rejected by the Courts below. As per the averments made in this petition, petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from disconnecting the tubewell connection in dispute forcibly and illegally asserting that the land of the plaintiff and defendants was joint and the tubewell connection in dispute fell in her share in the family settlement. The aforesaid tubewell connection is running in the land of the plaintiff and she is paying the electricity bills etc. to respondents No.4 and 5. Since the defendant-respondents No. 1 to 3 were threatening to get the tubewell connection disconnected in collusion with respondents No.4 and 5 and an attempt was made on 18.12.2009 to disconnect the same which was foiled by timely intervention, the present suit was filed. Along with the suit, petitioner filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from disconnecting the electric connection in question. The suit as well as the application for interim injunction was being contested by the respondents. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, it has been submitted that material facts have been concealed by the petitioner from the Court as the tubewell connection in question was in the name of father of defendants No. 1 and 2 which stood already disconnected on 12.5.2008. The mother-in-law of the plaintiff filed a civil suit, as well as, a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act before the District Consumer Forum,Kaithal, regarding the same tubewell connection in question. The civil suit pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kaithal was got dismissed in default by the petitioner. Before the Consumer Forum,Kaithal an interim order of restoration of tubewell connection was passed on misrepresentation of facts. However, the aforesaid complaint before the District Consumer Forum stood finally dismissed on 15.12.2009. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid averments, it was submitted that the suit was liable to be dismissed, and the petitioner was not entitled to any interim relief. After hearing learned counsel for the parties the Courts below rejected the prayer of the petitioner. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the tubewell connection in question was working at the spot and if the same was disconnected, there being no other alternate source of irrigation for the land of the petitioner, an irreparable loss and injury shall be caused to her, and all the three requirements of law for grant of temporary injunction stand satisfied in this case, as there was definitely a prima facie case in her favour for the grant of ad interim injunction and the Courts below have totally gone wrong in appreciating the documents of earlier litigation taken up by Smt.Bharpai. Since the petitioner was not a party in the previous litigation, the same cannot be taken into consideration while passing the impugned orders. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. There is no dispute that tubewell connection was disconnected on 12.5.2008 and the same was restored under the interim order passed by the District Consumer Forum,Kaithal, and the same has come to an end on dismissal of the complaint on 15.12.2009. The aforesaid facts which were very material for the disposal of the present application were concealed by the petitioner. It is well settled that who conceals material facts from knowledge of the Court, is not entitled to invoke the discretion of the Court. Not only this, petitioner cannot take the benefit of the interim order passed by the District Consumer Forum,Kaithal, which has come to an end by dismissal of the complaint. In fact, on the date of filing of the suit, tubewell connection in question stood disconnected (which was disconnected on 12.5.2009) and, therefore, the suit of the petitioner for permanent injunction itself was not maintainable in the present form. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no merits in this revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge May 7, 2010 rk