Civil Revision No. 1724 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 1724 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.3.2009 Satish Chander ..... Petitioner vs Punjab State Electricity Board and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Binderjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 5.3.2009 passed by the learned court below whereby the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for a direction to respondent no. 4/defendant no. 4 to produce the documents showing his ownership has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent no. 4/ defendant no. 4 in his written statement had taken the plea that he is the owner in possession of the premises bearing MC No. 5031. It is this material which was being sought by the petitioner for inspection. The petitioner and respondent no. 5 filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondents no. 1 to 3 restraining them from releasing any new electric connection. Though initially relief was sought against respondent no. 4 but he was not impleaded as one of the defendants. Later on, he became party to the suit. Learned court below granted interim injunction in favour of the petitioner, however, after respondent no. 4 was impleaded as one of the defendants, the application for vacation/ modification of the interim order was filed, which is pending. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The petitioner is claiming ownership of the property whereas respondent no. 4 is claiming himself to be the owner. The petitioner already has interim injunction in his favour. The application for vacation/ modification thereof filed by respondent no. 4, who was impleaded as one of the defendants later on is pending consideration. As to whether the Civil Revision No. 1724 of 2009 (2) petitioner is owner of the property or it is respondent no. 4 is a matter which is to be decided by the learned trial court after the parties lead their evidence. At this stage, I do not find any reason to direct respondent no. 4 to produce the documents which are sought to be relied upon by him in the written statement. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. 27.3.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge