C.R. No. 7242 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 7242 of 2008 Date of Decision: 13.10.2009 Karamjit Singh son of Late Maghar Singh, resident of village Agoul, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Secretary/ Chairman, the Mall Patiala; 2. Sub Divisional Officer, SDO, Punjab State Electricity Board, Ramgarh Bhadson, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala. 3. Nachhatar Singh son of Kishan Singh son of Gujjar Singh, resident of village Agoul, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. Dr. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 24.03.08, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nabha, vide which, the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the C.R. No. 7242 of 2008 2 Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, for ad-interim injunction, was dismissed, and the order dated 29.10.08, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide which, the appeal, was dismissed. 2. The plaintiff/revision-petitioner, claimed himself to be the owner in possession of the house, as fully detailed, in the head note of the plaint. He applied for domestic electric meter connection, in the suit house, in the month of October, 2003, and deposited the requisite security amount of Rs. 2250/-, with the Punjab State Electricity Board. Thereafter, on 15.12.06, the plaintiff, was asked to deposit some other security and installation charges etc. with the defendant board, to the tune of Rs. 2190/-. He deposited the same, on 15.12.06. After completing the requisite formalities, the defendants installed the domestic electric meter connection, in the premises of the plaintiff, and since then, the said meter, was in existence, in the suit house. It was further stated that the defendants, were trying to get the electric connection disconnected. They were many a time, asked not to do so, but to no avail. Ultimately, a suit for injunction, was filed. 3. Alongwith the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking ad-interim injunction, was filed. 4. In the written statement, as also reply, the Punjab State Electricity Board, stated that the plaintiff, completed all the formalities, as required, by the Board, for issuing a new domestic connection. One Ranjit Singh, undertook the responsibility. After that, Punjab State C.R. No. 7242 of 2008 3 Electricity Board, issued electric connection, to the plaintiff, in relation to the premises, in dispute. It was further stated that, Nachhattar Singh, defendant No. 3, filed an application alongwith the documents, before the Punjab State Electricity Board, mentioning therein, that, he was the owner of the house, in which, the electric connection, was given, by it (Board), and the same be disconnected. It was further stated that, after receiving this application, defendants No. 1 and 2, had issued notice, to the plaintiff, and an enquiry, was made, regarding the ownership of the house. It was further stated that the plaintiff, had neither submitted any reply, nor filed any document, regarding ownership. 5. Defendant No. 3/respondent, in the written statement, as also the reply, stated that, he was the owner of the house, in dispute, and his suit for possession, was pending, against the plaintiff. It was further stated that the plaintiff, in connivance with defendants No. 1 and 2, illegally got issued the electric connection, which was liable to be disconnected. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and on going through the record of the case, the trial Court, dismissed the application, vide the order impugned. 7. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal, was preferred, by the plaintiff, which was also dismissed, by the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide order dated 29.10.08. 8. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the plaintiff/revision-petitioner. 9. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone C.R. No. 7242 of 2008 4 through the documents, on record, carefully. 10. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the electric connection, had been running, since long, in the house, in dispute of which, the plaintiff, was in possession, and in case, the same, was disconnected, he would suffer an irreparable loss. He further submitted that, no doubt, defendant No. 3, had already filed a suit for possession of house, against the plaintiff, but till the decision thereof, the electric connection installed, therein, in the name of the plaintiff, could be allowed to run. He further submitted that the orders impugned, being illegal, were liable to be set aside. 11. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that the plaintiff, approached the Court, by concealment of material facts, and, as such, was not entitled to the relief of injunction. He further submitted that the orders of the Courts below, being legal and valid, were liable to be upheld. 12. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. Admittedly, defendant No. 3/respondent, has already filed a suit for possession, against the plaintiff/revision- petitioner, in respect of the house, in dispute, claiming himself, to be the owner of the same. In that suit, he filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, restraining the plaintiff (defendant therein), from raising any construction, forcibly and illegally. That application, was allowed, by C.R. No. 7242 of 2008 5 the Court. Later on, an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for vacation of stay, was filed, by the plaintiff (defendant therein), for modification of the order, which was dismissed, by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nabha, vide order dated 26.04.04. In the application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff, had contended, that the status-quo order, was being misused, and the same be modified. It was also contended that, he be allowed, to get the electric connection, in the house, in dispute. The previous litigation, was not disclosed by the plaintiff in the suit. It was also not disclosed that defendant No. 3, who was the plaintiff therein, filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, which was accepted. It was also not disclosed that an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was filed by him, in the earlier suit, which was dismissed. It means that, the plaintiff, concealed the material facts, from the Court. A person, who comes to the Court with soiled hands, is not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction. The Courts below, were, thus, right in holding, that the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, was not entitled to the ad- interim injunction. It is settled principle of law that, in the revision- petition, this Court, can only interfere, if it comes to the conclusion, that the orders impugned, are perverse or there was non-consideration of material documents. The orders of the Courts below, do not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and are liable to be upheld. The C.R. No. 7242 of 2008 6 submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. 13.10.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE