Suresh Kumar vs Kanwar Singh & Others on 29 October, 2009

RSA No.3879 of 2009                                   -1-


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                  CHANDIGARH

                                CM No.11841-C of 2009 &
                                RSA No.3879 of 2009
                                Decided on : 29.10.2009

Suresh Kumar                                     ... Appellant

                           versus

Kanwar Singh & others                            ...Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

Present : Mr. S.K.Yadav, Advocate
          for the appellant.
                             ****

1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see
  the judgment?
2.To be referred to the reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL)

This appeal has been filed against the judgments of

the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant-plaintiff for

permanent injunction restraining the respondents from installing

the H.T.Line over his land. The sole ground of the appellant was

that the said line would pass over his residence and would have

be hazardous to the appellant. Both the Courts below have found

that the construction made by the appellant was meant for cattle

shed and also that it was fresh. The following questions have

been proposed:

i) Whether the ld. Courts below has appreciated the

evidence brought before it in the right perspective or

not?

ii)Whether the action of the respondents in raising the
RSA No.3879 of 2009 -2-

High Tension Line upon the residential houses of the

appellant is as per the provisions mentioned in the

Electricity Act, 2003 and isntruction No.2.8 of Sales

Manual?

It would be seen that both the proposed questions are

pure questions of fact. Both the courts below have concurrently

found that there is no residential house of the appellant which

may be affected by the proposed wires. Learned counsel for the

appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings

recorded are either based on no evidence or are based on such

misreading of evidence which renders them so perverse as to be

liable for interference under Section 100 of CPC.

Consequently, this appeal and application for stay are

dismissed.

October 29, 2009                             (AJAY TEWARI)
sonia                                            JUDGE