WPC No.11956/2009 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11956/2009 % Date of decision : 15th February, 2010 BHAGWAT DAYAL VASHISHT ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Prakash Gautam, advocate. versus BSES LIMITED AND ANOTHER ..... Respondents Through Mr.Rajat Jariwal, advocate for BSES Mr.Rana Mukherjee, Ms.Seema Sharma, advocates for intervenor. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R 1. The petitioner claims interest in shop no. C-2, Hari Nagar, Badarpur, New Delhi on the basis of documents like Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, etc. executed on 13th December, 1995 by one Mr.Randhir Singh. It is further stated that the said Mr.Randhir Singh had purchased the property from Mr.Sarjeet Singh, brother of respondent no.2-Mr.Raj Kumar Chokan again on the basis of Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, etc. 2. There is dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 about ownership of the said shop. Mr.Sarjeet Singh, brother of respondent no.2 has also filed an application in this Court claiming that he had not sold the said shop to Mr.Randhir Singh and he was/is not the owner of the said shop. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the two brothers are now colluding and conniving with each other. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention WPC No.11956/2009 Page 2 that he is the owner of the said shop has relied upon Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, etc which were purportedly executed in December, 1995. He also relies upon electricity connection which was issued in the name of the petitioner way back in November 2007. He relies upon demand note dated 17th November, 2007 and electricity bills issued thereafter. Petitioner also relies upon photographs filed at page 36 of the paper book. Thus it is submitted that the petitioner is in actual physical possession of the shop. He submits that the order passed in writ petition no. 991/2009 filed by Mr.Raj Kr. Chokan which was disposed of on 24th July, 2009 cannot be relied upon by the respondent as the said order was passed behind the back of the petitioner and without his knowledge. He submits that the petitioner had filed an application in the said writ petition and he was asked to seek appropriate remedy in accordance vide order dated 25th August, 2009. Therefore the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. It is stated that a civil litigation is pending between the applicant-Mr.Sarjeet singh and the petitioner and the question of transfer/ownership of the said shop is pending adjudication. This Court is not concerned with the civil suit or the question of title. It is clarified that all issues with regard to the genuineness and authenticity of the documents which are being relied upon, is left open. 5. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and subject to orders which will be passed by the Civil Court, it is held that the petitioner is at liberty to apply for pre-paid electricity connection on furnishing indemnity bond, so that no liability or charge is fastened on the property. On an application being made by the petitioner for obtaining a pre-paid electricity connection along with indemnity bond, the same will be considered and decided expeditiously by the respondent-discom in accordance with law. Issue of pre-paid connection will not confer any right on the parties WPC No.11956/2009 Page 3 and will not entitle any party to disturb possession of the other. This order is being passed as the petitioner had obtained and was issued electricity connection in 2007. Thereafter, even electricity bills were issued and paid by the petitioner. This electricity connection was disconnected without notice to the petitioner and without any hearing. The petitioner is entitled to status quo in respect of the electricity connection. 6. It is open to the applicant-Mr.Sarjeet Singh to move the Civil court for interim order in respect of possession or right to possession. He can also pray for disconnection of electricity connection before the Civil Court. 7. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the question of title and genuineness of documents, possession and in respect of the criminal investigation which is stated to be pending. This Order is subject to the further orders which may be passed by the Civil Court in the main suit or any interim application. It will be open to the parties to rely upon the result of the criminal investigation. Writ Petition is disposed of. DASTI. SANJIV KHANNA, J. FEBRUARY 15, 2010 P