IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.7187/2008 Date of Decision:5.3.2009 Hazara Singh and others ..........Petitioners. Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others. ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. Rohit Ahuja,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Manish Kapila,Advocate for respondents 1 and 2. Mr.Padam Jain,Advocate for respondent no.3. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). By filing this revision petition under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners-plaintiffs have challenged the orders dated 12.10.2006 (Annexure P/1) and 11.10.2008 (Annexure P/2) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Sr.Div.) Kapurthala and learned Additional District Judge(Fast Tract) Kapurthala, respectively whereby the application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by them has been dismissed by the both the Courts below. It is apparent from the record that respondent no.3 Gian Singh had applied for a third electricity connection for his fields from the transformer of Village Khalu in order to get uninterrupted power supply. On payment of requisite charges, the installation order was issued on 7.11.2005. In order to lay the power line, seven electric poles- a pair of poles for the installation of CR NO.7187/2008 2 transformer and four other poles- were required to be erected. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 on instructions from Daljit Singh, Consumer Clerk, states at the Bar that in compliance of the installation order dated 7.11.2005, six poles out of seven, for installation of transformer and electricity cables had already been erected and only one pole remained to be erected when the Court was seized of the matter regarding the grant of injunction. Both the Courts on consideration of material on record declined temporary injunction. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 on instructions from said Daljit Singh, Consumer Clerk further states that the remaining pole has also been erected and electric connection supplying electricity to respondent no.3 from the said line has become operational. Learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid position, the grant of temporary injunction at this stage is meaningless and therefore, this petition has become infructuous. In view of the aforesaid statement made at the Bar by the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 this petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, in case the factual position is found to be incorrect the petitioners would be at liberty to file an appropriate application to get this revision petition revived. 5.3.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge