Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner -plaintiff challenging the order dt. 12.2.13 passed by the District Judge, Sikar (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 67/12, whereby the appellate Court has allowed the said appeal filed by the respondent No. 1, and set aside the order dt. 15.09.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (SD) Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in Civil Suit No. 86/12. In the instant case it appears that the petitioner -plaintiff and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 -defendant are the brothers. The petitioner has filed the suit against the respondents -defendants seeking permanent injunction in respect of the electric connection for the Tubewell in the land bearing Khasra No. 1194. The petitioner had also filed an application seeking temporary injunction for restraining the respondents -defendants from obtaining the electric connection for the tubewell in the name of the respondent No. 1 alone during the pendency of the suit. The said application was allowed by the trial Court vide the order dt. 15.9.12, against which the respondent No. 1 had preferred an appeal being No. (sic)/12 before the appellate Court. The said appeal has been allowed by the appellate Court vide the impugned order dt. 12.2.13.
(2.) IT is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Anoop Dhand that the Tubewell having been jointly constructed by the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, they being the brothers and the joint owners, the respondent No. 1 could not obtain the electric connection in his name alone. He also submitted that the appellate Court has wrongly reversed the order passed by the trial Court by stating incorrect facts. However, the learned counsel Mr. Himanshu Jain for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Anil Kumar Jain for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have submitted that one suit for partition filed by the respondent No. 2 in respect of all the Khasra numbers is already pending and the present suit filed by the petitioner -plaintiff was not maintainable. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the trial Court, it appears that the suit for partition in respect of the lands jointly owned by the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is already pending before the Court below, however the petitioner -plaintiff filed the another suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondents to the effect that the electric connection for the Tubewell may not be granted in the name of the respondent No. 1 alone. The appellate Court has rightly held that the suit for partition is already pending, and if the electric connection is granted by the concerned authority in the name of respondent No. 1 alone, that would not adversely effect the rights of any party, nor would decide the rights of ownership claimed by any party. The Court does not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the appellate Court and, therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.;