IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CR NO.7187/2008
Date of Decision:5.3.2009
Hazara Singh and others
..........Petitioners.
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board and others.
..........Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH.
Present: Mr. Rohit Ahuja,Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Manish Kapila,Advocate for respondents 1 and 2.
Mr.Padam Jain,Advocate for respondent no.3.
JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral).
By filing this revision petition under Articles 227 of the
Constitution of India, petitioners-plaintiffs have challenged the orders dated
12.10.2006 (Annexure P/1) and 11.10.2008 (Annexure P/2) passed by learned
Additional Civil Judge(Sr.Div.) Kapurthala and learned Additional District
Judge(Fast Tract) Kapurthala, respectively whereby the application under
order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by them has been dismissed by the both the
Courts below.
It is apparent from the record that respondent no.3 Gian Singh had
applied for a third electricity connection for his fields from the transformer of
Village Khalu in order to get uninterrupted power supply. On payment of
requisite charges, the installation order was issued on 7.11.2005. In order to
lay the power line, seven electric poles- a pair of poles for the installation of
CR NO.7187/2008 2
transformer and four other poles- were required to be erected.
Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 on instructions from
Daljit Singh, Consumer Clerk, states at the Bar that in compliance of the
installation order dated 7.11.2005, six poles out of seven, for installation of
transformer and electricity cables had already been erected and only one pole
remained to be erected when the Court was seized of the matter regarding the
grant of injunction. Both the Courts on consideration of material on record
declined temporary injunction.
Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 on instructions from said
Daljit Singh, Consumer Clerk further states that the remaining pole has also
been erected and electric connection supplying electricity to respondent no.3
from the said line has become operational.
Learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid position, the
grant of temporary injunction at this stage is meaningless and therefore, this
petition has become infructuous.
In view of the aforesaid statement made at the Bar by the learned
counsel for respondents 1 and 2 this petition is dismissed as infructuous.
However, in case the factual position is found to be incorrect the
petitioners would be at liberty to file an appropriate application to get this
revision petition revived.
5.3.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge