- (1.) This is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 20.10.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, who dismissed the suit filed by the present petitioner Mr. Raje Ram under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :-
(2.) Diwan Singh-respondent No. 1 filed a suit against H.V.P.H. and Raje Ram- present petitioner who was defendant No. 4 in the trial court for permanent injunction. It was alleged by Diwan Singh that he is the owner and in possession of the land in dispute. He moved an application for a direction to defendants No. 1 to 3 for electricity connection in the disputed land for the purpose of running a tubewell. A three phase line from point A to B was installed by defendants 1 to 3 on his expenses. However, a single phase connection from point P to D was given to defendant No. 4 for domestic purposes. It is also alleged by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 that defendant No. 4-the petitioner in collusion with defendants 1 to 3 now wants to take the connection from point B by installing poles in the disputed land illegally. It is averred by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 that defendant No. 4- petitioner cannot be allowed to take his connection from point P because he has borne the entire expenses of three phasing the line from point A to B and if defendant No. 4-petitioner is given electricity from point P, then more electricity poles will be required to be installed in the disputed land. If the electricity connection of defendant No. 4-petitioner is given from the original point, then only two poles will be required to be installed but if the electricity connection is given from point B, four poles will be required to be installed. Therefore, electricity connection of defendant No. 4- petitioner should be released from point C. Along with the suit, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 has filed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure and prayed that during the pendency of the suit, defendants 1 to 3 be restrained from restoring the electricity connection of defendant No. 4-petitioner from point B. Notice of the suit as well as the application was given to the defendants. They filed reply and denied the allegations. The learned trial Court vide order dated 26.9.2000 allowed the application for the following reasons given in para 10 of the order :- "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the file, it is clear that the main dispute is as to from which point (B, F, C) the electricity connection of the defendant No. 4 should be restored. It is also clear that the transformers on the disputed line are at point B and point C only, therefore, defendant No. 4 can be given an electricity connection from these points only. Perusal of the site plan of the plaintiff reveals that if the connection is given from point B which is a longer distance, more electricity poles will be required to be erected and this will cause interference in the agricultural pursuits of the plaintiff and will further cause more expenditure to defendant No. 4. The electricity connection from point C if granted will not require erection of more poles because the electricity poles at point E can be removed and used for laying the line from point B to C. Although the PVC connection can also be given from point F but as conceded by learned counsel for defendants 1 to 3, it will be at a very low height since the required height for HT line has not been observed. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has made a prima facie case in his favour and he shall suffer irreparable loss if the restoration of electricity connection of defendant No. 4 interferes in his agricultural work. Accordingly, the stay application is allowed and defendants are restrained from restoring the electricity connection of defendant No. 4 from point B and from erecting electricity poles in the disputed land. However, defendants 1 to 3 shall be at liberty to restore the electricity connection from point C or from point F provided they observe the required standard of height by making necessary changes."
(3.) Aggrieved by the order of the learned trial court, the petitioner- defendant No. 4 had filed an appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, who dismissed the appeal for the reasons given in para 6 of the impugned order dated 20.10.2000 which reads as under :- "On perusal of record on file, it is clear that the main dispute is as to from which point whether point B, F, or C, the electricity connection should be restored to defendant No. 4, since the transformer are situated at points B & C only, therefore, it will be feasible to give electric connection from point B more poles have to be erected and will be more expenditure to defendant No. 4. However, if the electricity connection from point C is granted, it will not require erection of more poles because electricity poles at point E can be removed and used for laying the line from point B to C. It is not possible to give P.V.C. connection from point F because that will be at a low height to install HT line. Thus, plaintiff has got a prima facie case if the electricity connection of defendant No. 4 is given from these points only. As per the site plan of the plaintiff, if connection is given from point B which is situated in the disputed land. Thus, the trial Court took the correct view while coming to the conclusion that plaintiff has no prima facie case in his favour and balance of convenience is also against him and he cannot suffer irreparable loan (loss ) if injunction is not given to him. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.";