C.R.No.1405 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.1405 of 2009. Decided on August 07, 2009. Sukhdev Singh and others .. Petitioners VERSUS Smt.Surjit Kaur and another. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Sunil Chadha, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.S.S.Mattewal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. M.M.S. BEDI, J. Petitioners-plaintiffs have filed this revision petition against the order dated 22.02.2007, passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Jagraon, and order dated 24.02.2009, passed by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, refusing to grant interim injunction to them to restrain the defendants-respondents from obstructing or causing any obstruction in the right of irrigation of the petitioners and from shifting the tubewell from the fields at its original place, claiming that they have been using tubewell electric connection being co-sharer and absolute owners of the land in dispute described in para 2 of the . . . 1 C.R.No.1405 of 2009 plaint and after having purchased the same by way of five sale deeds executed from 03.06.1986 to 17.07.1997, measuring 3 killas 4 kanals. Respondent No.1 had applied for a tubewell connection with respondent No.2, in the year 1986-87, which was sanctioned and released in the year 2000. The petitioners-plaintiffs claim that with the consent of respondent No.1, they met all the expenses and he agreement was reduced into writing between the petitioners and respondent No.1, wherein it was agreed that for four days, the petitioners-plaintiffs were irrigating her land whereas on 5th day, respondent No.1, was irrigating his land through the said electric connection and that she would not sell or transfer the connection to any other person. The said arrangement had been continuing as per the agreement but respondent No.1, was making an attempt to get the tubewell connection shifted through the Punjab State Electricity Board, respondent No.2, without consent of the petitioners-plaintiffs and want to debar the petitioners-plaintiffs from using of the electric connection. Defendant-respondent No.1 contested the application for interim injunction on the ground that she was owner of the agricultural land and had sold 3 killas 4 kanals of land in favour of the petitioners but kept more than one acre of land for her use. When there was no electric connection, as such, the giving of any right to the petitioners-plaintiffs does not arise. She claims that all the expenses were borne by her. The Electricity Board, respondent No.2, clarified that the electric connection was running in the fields of . . . 2 C.R.No.1405 of 2009 respondent No.1, in her name and that she had applied for shifting of the connection vide her letter dated 29.11.2006 after paying all the shifting charges. The processing has been completed. The trial Court dismissed the application for interim injunction observing that the petitioners-plaintiffs are not co-sharers with respondent No.1 and that respondent No.1, is the sole owner of the electric connection and that the plaintiffs can, at the most, avail the remedy for damages as per the recital in writing dated 05.01.2001. The lower Appellate Court did not vacate the order passed by the lower Court forming an opinion that defendant-respondent No.1, being absolute owner of the electric connection, the petitioners-plaintiffs were not entitledto any relief of interim injunction. Learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs argued that the petitioners have purchased land from defendant-respondent No.1, as such, they have become co-sharer along with respondent No.1. He relied upon the averments in the sale deeds dated 20.12.1993 and 17.07.1997, wherein it is mentioned that respondent No.,1 has transferred all her rights in the land sold to the petitioners including Pani Bor i.e., Water bor, as the water bore existed in Khasra No.16/1. The tubewell connection was installed at the bore dug out in Khasra No.16/1. The agreement dated 05.02.2001, was entered into between the parties when the tubewell onnection was sanctioned and released on 31.03.2000. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submit that defendant being absolute owner of the electric . . . 3 C.R.No.1405 of 2009 connection has got right of transferring the same on her land. It was argued that the plaintiffs want to pressurize the defendant to sell her property which still remains with her by harassing her by filing suit. I have heard counsel for the petitioners as well as counsel for the respondents. The petitioners-plaintiffs have not been able, prima facie, to establish their right to use the electric connection owned by the defendants-respondents. A person who is absolute owner of the electric connection has got a right to use the same in a manner suitable to him. The plaintiffs does not seem to have, prima facie, a strong claim for the user of electric connection for the purpose of running a tubewell. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of defendant-respondent No.1, as she wants to shift the electric connection in the portion of land now owned by her. Besides this no irreparable loss would be suffered by the petitioners because they had purchased the land from the defendant-respondent No.1, by virtue of five sale deeds which were executed prior to the release of electric connection. The mode of irrigation adopted by him before 2000, can still be continued by her. All the three necessary ingredients, which are required to be established to seek interim injunction do not seem to be attracted, as such, no ground is made out for interference in the orders passed by the Courts below and the present revision petition is dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE August 07, 2009. rka . . . 4 C.R.No.1405 of 2009 . . . 5 C.R.No.1405 of 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE August 03, 2009. rka . . . 6