R.S.A. No. 4104 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A. No. 4104 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 30, 2010 Satnam Singh and another ---Appellant versus Amarjit Singh and others ---Respondents Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.H.S.Batth, Advocate, for the appellants *** GURDEV SINGH, J. The appellants-plaintiffs, Satnam Singh and Sarwan Singh, having lost before the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, have come up with this second appeal. They filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from transferring/shifting the tube well connection A/C No. JJ-1106, running in the name of Amarjit Singh, in the land measuring 16 Kanals, situated in village Bahadur Nagar, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran, from Transformer of 25 KVA SOP Amarjit R.S.A. No. 4104 of 2010 -2- Singh Jodh Singh Wala. They averred in the plaint that Amarjit Singh- defendant, applied for electric connection for tube well before 1998 but failed. He managed to obtain that connection in the name of Gurpal Singh. However, when the demand notice was issued, that defendant was not willing to get that connection and as such approached them and they agreed to get that connection installed in the name of the defendant, after paying the expenses to P.S.E.B. This connection was installed about six years back and since then they are using the same for irrigating the said land. They requested defendant No. 1 to get this connection transferred in their name. In stead of doing so, he in connivance with the other defendants, threatened to shift that connection to some other place. Hence, they filed suit for permanent injunction. The suit was contested by the defendants. Defendant No. 1 filed independent written statement, in which he denied the contentions of the plaintiffs. He inter alia pleaded that this electric connection was purchased by him from Gurpal Singh for ` 2500/- and the same has fallen to the share of his real brother, Hardeep Singh, in the oral family settlement and that Hardeep Singh is using the same for irrigating his land. This connection was to be installed in the land owned by them and for shifting the same, they deposited the requisite fee with the P.S.E.B by way of installation charges, but the officials of that Board, in connivance with the plaintiffs, installed this connection in the other land. All these facts were admitted by the plaintiffs before the panchayat of the village on 19.7.2003. They admitted that they had got installed this tube well connection in their name fraudulently and this connection belongs to him and that he was R.S.A. No. 4104 of 2010 -3- legally entitled to get the same shifted to the other land. He also took up preliminary objections to the effect that the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct from filing this suit and they have no locus standi to file the same. Suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties. Plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands and they are not entitled to the equitable relief of permanent injunction. Defendants No. 2 to 4 filed joint written statement, in which they denied the contentions of the plaintiffs and pleaded that this connection was running in the name of defendant No. 1, who is the consumer of the Board. All the charges for supplying the electricity from the transformer known as Amarjit Singh Wala Transformer, are being deposited by that defendant. The plaintiffs have no cause of action to file this suit. They have not come to the Court with clean hands. They took up the objection that Civil Court had not jurisdiction to decide the suit. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial court:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are actual owners/consumers of Electricity Board as to the disputed connection?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for injunction, as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs have suppressed the material facts, if so, its effect?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the present suit?OPD 5. Whether the suit for permanent injunction simpliciter is not maintainable?OPD R.S.A. No. 4104 of 2010 -4- 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 7. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties?OPS 8. Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to hear this suit?OPD 9. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 10.Relief To succeed in the suit, plaintiffs examined Resham Singh , PW-2. Satnam Singh, plaintiff, himself entered the witness box as PW-1. On the other hand, defendants No. 2 to 4 have examined Jagdish Singh, DW-2. Defendant no. 1 examined himself as DW-1. After going through that evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court decided issues No. 1, 2, 5,6 and 9 against the plaintiffs and other issues in their favour and resultantly dismissed their suit, vide judgment and decree dated 7.4.2009. The first appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against that judgment and decree was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran, vide judgment and decree dated 27.9.2010. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants. Concurrent findings of facts were recorded against the plaintiffs by both the lower courts. Their counsel has not been able to satisfy this Court that any substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. The submissions made by him are only to the effect that the evidence produced by the plaintiffs has not been properly appreciated. That R.S.A. No. 4104 of 2010 -5- cannot be said to be a substantial question of law. When no substantial question of law arises, this appeal is not competent and the same is dismissed accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE November 30, 2010 PARAMJIT