Delhi High Court
Achla Shokeen & Anr. vs Om Prakash Shokeen & Ors. on 6 May, 2016
Author: Ashutosh Kumar
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA 124/2016
Date of Decision: 06.05.2016
ACHLA SHOKEEN & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.R.Vasudevan, Advocate.
versus
OM PRAKASH SHOKEEN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
CM Appln.16623/2016
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
RSA 124/2016
1. The appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dated
02.06.2014 passed by the Trial Court in Suit No.107/2014 whereby
the relief sought by the appellants/plaintiffs was rejected as also
against the judgment dated 04.02.2016 passed by the First Appellate
Court in RCA No.23/2014 whereby the judgment of the Trial Court
was upheld and affirmed.
2. The appellants/plaintiffs sought injunction against the
respondents/defendants from obstructing in the peaceful enjoyment of
the property bearing No.36/72, Punjabi West, New Delhi as also from
dispossessing them without the process of law. Mandatory injunction
was also sought seeking direction to the respondents/defendants for
restoring electric supply in the suit premises which comprised one
room set in the main house. The appellants and the respondents are
related to each other and respondent/defendant No.1 is the father-in-
law of appellant No.1 and respondent/defendant Nos.2 & 3 are her
brother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively.
3. The grievance of the appellants is that while she was away to
her matrimonial home and her husband, appellant No.2 was off to
Germany, the electric line in the part of the house occupied by them
was disconnected. The appellant No.1 claimed the suit property to be
her matrimonial home where she had been staying with appellant No.2
ever since her marriage, in one room set.
4. The suit was contested on the plea that after the marriage, the
appellants had permanently settled in Germany. The allegation of the
appellants regarding the electric connection being disconnected was
stated to be false. The wiring in the house had become old and,
therefore, new wiring was mandatorily required. For the entire house,
wiring was replaced but such replacement could not be made in the
portion occupied by the appellants as the appellants had left the suit
premises after locking the same. Considering the fact that electric
connection in the portion of house in occupation of the
appellants/plaintiffs would be hazardous, no electric connection was
given in the room in occupation of the appellants/plaintiffs.
5. The Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties
framed the following issues:-
i Whether the defendants have unjustifiably disconnected
the electricity supply to the portion under occupation of
the plaintiff? OPP.
ii Whether the defendants are liable to restore the
electricity supply to the portion under occupation of the
plaintiff? OPP.
iii Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent
injunction as prayed? OPP.
iv Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory
injunction as prayed? OPP.
v Relief.
6. With respect to issue whether the respondents/defendants had
unjustifiably disconnected the electric line and were, therefore, under
an obligation to restore the same, the Trial Court relied upon the fact
that the electric connection in the suit property stood in the name of
the late mother-in-law of appellant No.1 and the appellant No.1 (PW-
1) admitted before the Trial Court that she had not paid any electricity
bills after August, 2006. The Trial Court, therefore, was of the opinion
that the appellants had stayed in the suit property till 21.12.2006 and
had never even applied for grant of electric connection in their name.
Similar statement was made by appellant No.2 (PW-2) as well.
7. There is no averment in the plaint as to who would bear the
expenses of the electricity in case the electric line is restored in the
portion of the house which is in occupation of the appellants/plaintiffs.
Thus the claim of the appellants/plaintiffs was rightly found to be
lacking in bonafides. The Trial Court was justified in returning the
finding that the appellants/plaintiffs wanted to settle other scores with
the defendants. The relief of mandatory injunction was thus refused.
8. Since the appellants/plaintiffs were found to be in possession of
the suit premises, the Trial Court decreed the suit with respect to the
permanent injunction as prayed by the appellants/plaintiffs. The
respondents/defendants were directed not to dispossess the
appellants/plaintiffs without following the due process of law.
9. The First Appellate Court while agreeing with the findings of
the Trial Court, held that the appellants/plaintiffs are the co-owners of
the property and, therefore, they would be entitled to have electricity
in their portion of which they are in occupation of. But the same
cannot be claimed as a matter of right unless there is any legal or
contractual obligation for the respondents/defendants to provide
electric connection in the occupied suit premises. The First Appellate
Court also took note of the fact that the respondents/defendants had
offered to give a no objection certificate (NOC) to the
appellants/plaintiffs for obtaining separate electric connection in their
name. In the absence of any such legal or contractual obligation for
providing electric connection in the occupied portion, the First
Appellate Court upheld the judgment of the Trial Court.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the
First Appellate Court did not at all deal with the evidence adduced on
their behalf. It was further submitted that the first appeal is a valuable
right of a party and he ought to be heard on questions of law as well as
of facts. The First Appellate Court, therefore, is always enjoined to
decide the issues relating to facts and law by giving reasons in support
or against the findings of the Court of first instance.
11. A bare perusal of the judgment delivered by the First Appellate
Court falsifies the aforesaid contention of the appellants. There is no
prescribed format for rendering judgment. The evidence adduced on
behalf of the parties have been very succinctly dealt with by the First
Appellate Court.
12. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law,
arises in the present second appeal.
13. The present second appeal is, therefore, dismissed, but without
costs.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
MAY 06, 2016
k
