Civil Revision No.7724 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** DATE OF DECISION: 26.11.2010 Jatinder Pal Singh **** . . . . Petitioner VS. Ashok Kumar & others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN. **** Present: - Mr. Sandeep Ganghas, Advocate for Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against order dated 9.11.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge Patiala, vide which the application filed by respondent No.1 under order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) has been allowed. In brief the facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff is the tenant in the premises in dispute (shop). The petitioner (respondent No.4 in the suit) filed an ejectment petition against respondent No.1, which was allowed on 18.12.2007. It is admitted fact that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, respondent No.1 got the electricity connection on furnishing indemnity bond with the Electricity Board, subject to the final outcome of the ejectment petition. After the culmination of the trial, respondent No.1 had filed an affidavit before the Electricity Board for the purpose of disconnection of the electricity connection. Later on, in his appeal he challenged the ejectment order in which stay was granted by the Court on 10.3.2008. Respondent No.1 then requested the Electricity Department for restoration of the connection, which was declined, which led to the filing of the complaint by him under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 for the deficiency of the service on the part of the Electricity Department, which was dismissed on 28.5.2008. Ultimately, respondent No.1 filed the present suit for mandatory injunction, in which he filed an application for injunction, which 1 Civil Revision No.7724 of 2010 was dismissed by the Trial Court, but allowed by the First Appellate Court on the ground that the electricity is the basic need of human life. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while impugning the order of the learned First Appellate Court, has strenuously argued that the electricity connection was disconnected on filing of the affidavit of respondent No.1 and for that purpose he has no right to seek reconnection by way of mandatory injunction. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that respondent No.1, at the time of obtaining the electricity connection, has given an undertaking that the connection shall be subject to the final outcome of the ejectment petition. Admittedly, the appeal is in continuation of suit and final outcome of the ejectment petition is yet to come. Moreover, the reasoning adopted by the learned First Appellate Court that the electricity is the basic need of life, which cannot be denied by the Electricity Department and could not also be challenged by the landlord/petitioner on the ground that respondent No.1 had earlier given such an undertaking. It appears that after loosing the case before the Rent Controller, respondent No.1 might have thought that the electricity connection may be disconnected temporarily, but when he was granted stay by the First Appellate Court, he filed an application for revival of the connection. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality in the findings of the First Appellate Court. Hence, the present revision petition is found to be without any merit as such the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) November 26, 2010 JUDGE Monika 2