CR No.6473 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 7.9. 2011 Surjit Kaur ...Petitioner VERSUS Executive Engineer (Electricity) and others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: None for the petitioner Mr.J.S.Mehandiratta, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 4 Mr.R.K.Bansal, Advocate for respondents no.5 and 6 Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Today none is present on behalf of the petitioner. On the last date of hearing also, the petitioner remained absent. This petition is being heard in the absence of counsel for the petitioner. This revision is directed against the order dated 3.6.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Ludhiana whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 10.4.2008 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Ludhiana has been dismissed. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction seeking a direction for restoration of the electric connection in House No.221, Rani CR No.6473 of 2009 2 Jhansi Road, Civil Lines, Ludhiana on the allegations that the respondents have illegally disconnected electric connection and has also removed the meter etc. The petitioner also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking interim relief in the nature of mandatory injunction for restoration of the electric connection pending disposal of the suit. The respondents-defendants resisted the application on variety of grounds. It was alleged that the petitioner-plaintiff is not the owner of the house and he is not residing in the house in question. It was also specifically pleaded that no electric connection was ever installed in the said house. Service connection order dated 31.10.2006 was issued on which the concerned official made report that the premises in which the petitioner- plaintiff has applied for new connection is in the name of Sh. Prem Nath and the petitioner-plaintiff is not residing in the said house which is lying locked. The petitioner-plaintiff, however, pleaded that Prem Nath is son-in- law of mother of the plaintiff. The trial court vide its order dated 10.4.2008, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, came to the conclusion that no electric connection was ever installed and neither the plaintiff-petitioner is owner of the premises nor she is residing in the house in question and thus, the trial court refused to grant the interim relief. The order passed by the trial court came to be challenged by the petitioner-plaintiff before the court of Additional District Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Ludhiana. The appellate court also concurred with the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal vide its judgment dated 3.6.2009. Hence the petitioner has challenged the orders of both the courts below in this revision petition. Even though the petitioner is absent, however, I have heard learned CR No.6473 of 2009 3 counsel for respondents and with their assistance, I have perused the orders passed by the courts below. There is concurrent finding of fact returned by both the courts below that no electric connection was ever installed in the premises. It has also been concurrently held that neither the petitioner is residing in the house nor she is the owner thereof. Necessary ingredient for grant of injunction much less in mandatory form not satisfied. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders as they do not suffer from illegality or irregularity. This revision is accordingly dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 7.9.2011 MFK CWP No.10585 of 2010 4