Regular Second Appeal No. 2858 of 2007 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Regular Second Appeal No. 2858 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 26, 2008 Bhagan Singh ... Appellant Versus The Punjab State Electricity Board and others .. Respondents CORAM : Hon`ble Mr. Justice Pritam Pal. Present : Shri Binderjit Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. PRITAM PAL , J. This Regular Second Appeal by Bhagan Singh -plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) is directed against judgment and decree dated 1.12.2006 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phul, whereby a suit for mandatory injunction, directing the respondents to uproot the electric poles at point B, C as shown in the site-plan (Ex.P1) and mentioned in the head-note of the plaint, was dismissed. Thereafter the first appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.2.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda. This is how feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come-up in this appeal. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent – Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as “PSEB”) had installed the electric poles in the land of the appellant and Regular Second Appeal No. 2858 of 2007 2 ... stretched the electric wires thereon for giving connection to respondent No. 3, without paying him any compensation. He then also relied upon Sarwan Singh and others v. Ranjit Singh 1993 Civil Court Cases 322 (P&H) and contended that the suit of the appellant should have been decreed. The above contention of learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of any merit in the given facts and circumstances of this case, inasmuch as, both the courts below have held , after citing the rules and law laid-down on the point in question, that the PSEB has rightly and legally installed the electric poles for stretching electric wire in order to give the electric connection to the tubewell of respondent No. 3, who is an ex-serviceman. At the same time, learned trial court, while discussing issue Nos. 1 and 2, has categorically held that the appellant is, however, at liberty to seek remedy of compensation before the competent authority, for installation of electric poles in his land. I have gone through the afore-cited ruling, relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant and find that the facts contained therein are quite at variance from the facts of the case in hand, inasmuch as, here in the instant case, the electric poles had been installed much prior to the filing of the suit and the electric connection had also been provided to the tubewell of respondent No.3. During the course of arguments, it could not be pointed-out by learned counsel for the appellant as to for how much time, the electric poles were installed in the land of the appellant, prior to the filing of the suit. Faced with this situation, no benefit can be derived by the appellant from the observations made by His Lordship in Sarwan Singh's case (supra). Moreso, learned counsel for the appellant could not Regular Second Appeal No. 2858 of 2007 3 ... make out any substantial question of law, for consideration by this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal is dismissed in limine. [ PRITAM PAL ] May 26, 2008. JUDGE som