IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.4588 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: December 14, 2011. Harbans Singh. ...... APPELLANT. Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others. ...... RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Deepak Nayyar, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M. No.13646-C of 2010. Heard. In view of the facts mentioned in the application accompanied by affidavit, appellant is allowed to make good the deficiency in court fee. It has been stated by learned counsel for the appellant that he has already made good the deficiency in the court fee. Civil Misc. stands disposed of. C.M. No.13647-C of 2010. Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.4588 of 2010(O&M) RSA No.4588 of 2010. The present regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.04.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar dismissing the appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 8.5.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar dismissing the suit filed by appellant- plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and have gone through the whole record including impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. Briefly stated, dispute is between the appellant-plaintiff and his real brother Satwant Singh, respondent-defendant No.3. Admittedly, tubewell connection in dispute is in the name of respondent-defendant No.3 and however, he intends to get the same transferred to some other killa number and hence, this suit for permanent injunction restraining him from getting the tubewell connection in dispute transferred to some other Killa number. On notice being issued, respondent-defendant No.3 contested the same by taking plea that he is actual consumer of the said tubewell connection and that he has legally moved an application for shifting the said tubewell connection after completing all the formalities and after depositing the requisite fee with respondents-defendants No.1 and 2. Specific plea has been taken that though the land has been partitioned and however, tubewell connection in dispute was not part of partition proceedings and that he is exclusive owner of the tubewell connection in question. 2 RSA No.4588 of 2010(O&M) As no evidence was adduced by the present appellant-plaintiff despite several opportunities, his suit was dismissed under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Appeal filed by the present appellant-plaintiff was also dismissed by learned first appellate Court. The only point contended by learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff is that he be granted one opportunity to adduce evidence. However, perusal of file shows that already sufficient opportunities were availed by appellant-plaintiff including last opportunities and hence, learned trial Court rightly exercised its discretion in closing the evidence of appellant-plaintiff. Learned first appellant Court did not interfere in the said discretion exercised by learned trial Court. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) December 14, 2011. JUDGE Sachin M. 3