IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.87 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.1.2009. Bhan Singh ....Petitioner Versus Secretary, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Ms.Sonia G. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL, J. **** Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Courts below whereby the prayer for interim injunction has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ground on which the injunction has been declined is not legally tenable as in the other suit filed by the petitioner the injunction was denied only for the reason that in the previous suit filed by the petitioner the injunction regarding the same electricity connection the interim injunction was not granted. It was submitted that the relief claimed in both the suits are different and merely because the injunction was not granted in the present suit the same could not be rejected in other case. In any case it was required to be considered independently in the proceedings. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submission made. The present suit was filed with the prayer for declaration to the effect that the petitioner is owner in possession of 2/3 share of Electricity Connection No.DA-1- 758 installed in the name of Harnam Singh (deceased) and as per writing dated 13.1.1987, in the land in possession of the petitioner/plaintiff permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendants from shifting the said electricity connection C.R. No.87 of 2009 (O&M) -2- from the present place and further restraining the respondent/defendants from getting the same transferred in the name of defendants No.3 to 6. In the suit subsequently filed by the petitioner the prayer was for permanent injunction with regard to the same electricity connection seeking restrain against the defendants therein from causing any loss to the above said electricity connection, construction and material. As claimed in both the suits is with regard to the same electricity connection in the first suit no interim injunction was granted to the petitioner. In the second suit also the stay application was rejected way back on 24.5.2005. No illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in dismissing the application for stay while noticing non-grant of stay in the other suit though filed earlier and also the fact that the connection was admittedly in the name of Harnam Singh (deceased) and the defendants No.3 to 5 were infact his legal heirs, no case for interference is made out. Dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 12.1.2009 JUDGE Reema