IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1715 of 2010 Date of decision: 7.4.2010 Chaman Lal and others ......Petitioner(s) Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: None. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) This is plaintiffs' revision petition challenging the impugned orders whereby their application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for grant of ad interim injunction during the pendency of the suit has been declined. As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioners are owners of suit land measuring 35 kanals 7 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Chohal. The land of defendant-respondent No.4 is towards the Southern side of the property of the petitioners, where he intends to instal an electric connection for his tubewell. In order to give electric supply to the said tubewell, respondent No.4 moved an application to respondents No.1 to 3 and on his request, they have collected material at the spot and have already dug electric poles in the land owned by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs requested the defendants not to install poles through their land and to give electric connection to the tubewell of respondent No.4 through alternative routes available. Since the defendants were bent upon releasing the electric connection through the land of the petitioners, the present suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 to 3 from releasing the electric connection to the tubewell of CR No.1715 of 2010 -2- respondent No.4 through the land of the petitioners was filed. Along with this suit, the petitioners also filed an application for grant of ad interim injunction. The aforesaid application was contested by the defendant-respondents submitting therein that the electric connection for tubewell of respondent No.4 has been sanctioned by the Competent Authority of the Punjab State Electricity Board as per rules and regulations. The service for grant of tubewell connection has been prepared keeping in view the technical feasibility and other safety measures as per rules and the proposed estimate etc. has been sanctioned by the Competent Authority and that the plaintiffs can claim damages, if any, caused to his property and can seek compensation as per rules. The Courts below after considering the contentions raised by both the parties have observed that no prima facie case is made out in favour of the appellants and thus, no fault can be found with the impugned orders. No is present on behalf of the petitioners to assist this Court. I have perused the impugned orders and I find no reason to interfere in exercise of the discretionary powers of the Courts below for grant of interim injunction. Dismissed. April 7, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE