CR No. 1530 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 1530 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.03.2011. Arjan Singh .......Petitioner Vs. Ajit Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. H.S.Batth, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration that he was owner/consumer of electric tubewell connection in question. Along with the suit, plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Vide order dated 16.3.2010 trial court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said order, plaintiff preferred an appeal. Vide order dated 7.1.2011, the appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran. Hence, the present petition by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. Admittedly, the petitioner had mortgaged his land with defendant No.1. Thereafter, defendant No.1 got installed CR No. 1530 of 2011 (O&M) -2- the electric connection in dispute in his name after completing all the necessary formalities. The case of the petitioner is that he had purchased the said connection from defendant No.1. However, as per the receipt dated 26.3.2008 the land was got redeemed by Swaran Singh and defendant No.1 delivered the possession to Swaran Singh after taking an amount of ` 90,000/-. Learned courts below have held that there was no material on record to substantiate the plea of the plaintiff that he had purchased the electric connection in dispute. In these circumstances, the application for interim application was liable to be dismissed. Hence, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 04, 2011 Gurpreet