Jarnail Singh & Anr. v. Piara Singh & Ors.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate for the petitioners L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) CM No. 32859.CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. CR No. 8471 of 2010 Petitioners filed suit for permanent injunction, inter alia, seeking injunction against shifting of electricity connection of tubewell. Trial court vide judgment dated 17.11.2010, Annexure P/4 dismissed the suit. Petitioners have preferred first appeal dated 6.12.2010, Annexure P/5 against judgment and decree of the trial court. The petitioners also moved application Annexure P/6 along with appeal seeking temporary injunction to the same effect as sought in the suit. Learned District Judge, Sangrur in whose court the aforesaid appeal is pending, vide order dated 7.12.2010, Civil Revision No. 8471 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Annexure P/7 observed that the appeal seemed to involve some arguable points. Accordingly, the appeal was admitted and notice of the appeal has been ordered to be issued to respondents for 16.2.2011.

Simultaneously notice of application for ad-interim injunction has also been ordered to be given to respondents for the same date. Petitioners have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for directing the lower appellate court to pass appropriate order on stay application Annexure P/6 moved by the petitioners in their first appeal and in the meantime respondents be restrained from shifting tubewell connection and khal from the present site during the pendency of the appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that first appeal preferred by the petitioners would be rendered infructuous if the question of temporary injunction is not decided because notice of the appeal and application for temporary injunction has been issued for 16.2.2011 and in the meantime, the respondents would shift the connection of the tubewell as well as the water course.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention. In so far as the change of water course is concerned, prayer in the instant revision petition relating to the same is completely misconceived and untenable because no such prayer appears to have been made even in the suit by the petitioners. The suit relates to user of tubewell and its connection and does not relate to water course. Civil Revision No. 8471 of 2010 (O&M) -3- In so far as shifting of tubewell connection is concerned, lower appellate court vide order Annexure P/7 has found that there are some arguable points in the appeal. However, notice of appeal and injunction application has been issued for a long date and if in the meanwhile, respondents shift the electricity connection in question, the petitioners would be adversely effected without even adjudication of their prayer for ad-interim injunction. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is disposed of by directing lower appellate court i.e. learned District Judge, Sangrur to dispose of application Annexure P/6 moved by the petitioners for injunction as expeditiously as possible.

In the meantime, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo regarding the electricity connection in question till decision of application Annexure P/6 or till decision of appeal by the lower appellate court whichever is earlier. Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of appeal or application for temporary injunction pending before the lower appellate court. December 24, 2010 'dalbir' ( L.N. Mittal ) Judge