Civil Revision No.5459 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5459 of 2011 Date of Decision:7.9.2011 Jaspal Singh & Anr. .....Petitioners Versus Bahadur Singh & others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Malhar Singh Dhami, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Sarju Puri, Advocate for the respondent-caveator. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J .(Oral) The compendium of the facts, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that Bahadur Singh son of Pakhar Singh respondent No.1-plaintiff (for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit seeking a decree for permanent injunction, restraining Jaspal Singh and Jarnail Singh petitioner-defendants (for short “the defendants”) from shifting the electric tubewell connection to some other place, in order to stop irrigation of the joint land of the parties, where joint tubewell is installed. He has also moved an application for ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC on the same line of pleadings as contained in the plaint. 2. The defendants contested the suit, filed the written statement and reply to the stay application, stoutly denying all the allegations of the plaint and stay application and prayed for its dismissal. 3. After taking into consideration the entire material on record, the trial Court accepted the stay application, by virtue of impugned order dated 27.10.2009 Civil Revision No.5459 of 2011 -2- (Annexure P1). 4. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the defendants filed the appeal, which was dismissed with costs as well, by the Ist Appellate Court, by means of impugned order dated 6.8.2011 (Annexure P2). 5. The petitioner-defendants still did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders of the Courts below and preferred the instant revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present revision petition in this context. 7. As is evident from the record that the tubewell was installed in joint land of the parties for irrigation purposes and electric tubewell connection was taken in the name of defendant No.3. It is not a matter of dispute that land in dispute is still joint property. Defendant No.3 alone has no right to shift the electric tubewell connection to some other place to deprive the other co-sharers from irrigating their land, unless the same is partitioned between the parties. 8. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the jointness of the property and other relevant factors, has rightly accepted the stay application of the plaintiff. Not only that, the decision of the trial Court was upheld by the Ist Appellate Court, by way of impugned order (Annexure P2), the operative part of which is (para 9) as under:- “The appellants assert that suit land has been partitioned and every co-sharer is irrigating his own land, whereas contention of the plaintiff is that suit land is still joint and tubewell connection has been installed in the joint land and as such, is joint source of irrigation. Copy of jamabandi for the year 2003-04 relating to the suit property is placed on the file, which shows that suit land is still joint and has not been partitioned. As such, the tubewell connections in dispute, which are installed in the joint land is joint source of irrigation. It is correct that tubewell connections in dispute are installed only in the name of Kehar Singh, but this fact does not make Kehar Singh as exclusive owner of the tubewell connections in dispute as Civil Revision No.5459 of 2011 -3- the same has been installed in the joint land of plaintiff and defendants no.1 to 3. In case titled Om Parkash and others Vs. Ishwar Singh and others, 2008(3) Recent Civil Reports 777, a tubewell was installed in joint holding and electric connection was taken in the name of elder brother during the joint family and petitioner was minor at that time. During the family partition, tubewell fell in the land of share of petitioner and elder brother wanted to get the same disconnected as the same was in his name, but it was observed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court that elder brother cannot get the same disconnected merely because it was in his name, as it is deemed to be the part of joint property. It was further observed that at the stage of application u/o 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, the court has only to consider the prejudice and irreparable loss in case interim injunction is granted or not granted and dis-connection of electricity would deprive the petitioner of necessary source of irrigation and it will be erroneous to hold that the petitioner will not suffer any prejudice or loss in case injunction is refused and connection is allowed to be disconnected. In the case in hand also, if the electric connection is shifted to some other place or if the plaintiff is obstructed from irrigation his land from the tubwell connections in dispute which is installed in the joint land of the parties, then plaintiff would suffer as his crop would be spoiled. The same proposition of law was held in case titled Gopi Ram Vs. Shyam Sunder and others, 2006(2) Law Herald 1215 and Darshan Singh Vs. Raghbir Singh 2001(2) Recent Civil Reports 328. As such, the learned lower court has rightly restrained the defendants from shifting the tubewell connections in dispute or from obstructing the plaintiff from irrigating his land from the tubewell electric connections in dispute till the land is partitioned.” 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner-defendants did not point out any material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in what manner, the impugned orders of the Courts below are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant behalf. 10. Meaning thereby, both the Courts below have recorded the cogent grounds in allowing the stay application filed by the plaintiff, through the medium of impugned orders (Annexures P1 and P2). Such impugned orders, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless and Civil Revision No.5459 of 2011 -4- until, the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner- defendants, therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 12. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest, it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition filed by the petitioner-defendants is hereby dismissed as such. 13. Needless to state that nothing observed here-in-above would reflect in any manner on the merits of the case as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding this revision petition. 7.9.2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) AS JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No