In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 4647 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:August 27, 2009 Kewal Ram ---Petitioner versus Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. O.P.Hoshiarpuri,Advocate, for the petitioner *** SABINA J. Petitioner –Kewal Ram has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside of order dated 6.11.2008 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Mansa (Annexure P-1) and order dated 27.2.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Mansa (Annexure P-2). Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transferring the transformer. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also filed. Vide order dated 6.11.2008(Annexure P-1), the application for temporary injunction was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Mansa. In appeal, the said order was upheld by Additional District Judge(Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Mansa vide order dated 22.7.2009 (Annexure P-2). Civil Revision No. 4647 of 2009(O&M) -2- Hence the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the transformer was in existence at point 'A' as shown in Annexure P-4 for the last 35 years. Now, without any reason or necessity, the transformer is being shifted to point 'B' and the same was adjacent to the house of the petitioner. The transformer was being shifted by the Electricity department in connivance with defendants No. 4 to 6. A perusal of the site plan(Annexure P-4) reveals that initially, the transformer was fixed at point 'A' in front of the house of Ram Lal. The house of the petitioner is adjacent to the house of Ram Lal. Now, the transformer is being shifted to point 'B' and it is in the property of Ram Lal. The house of the plaintiff is adjacent to point 'B'. Both the courts below have rightly dismissed the application for temporary injunction as the transformer was not being shifted in the property of the petitioner nor it was being affixed in front of the house of the petitioner. Rather the transformer was being shifted in the property belonging to Ram Lal and others (defendants No. 4 to 6). Thus, the plaintiff has no prima facie case of balance of convenience in his favour nor he is going to suffer any loss in case the interim injunction is not granted. Accordingly, no interference is called for. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 27, 2009 PARAMJIT