Narender vs Sub Divisional Officer And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 16909 P&H

CR-80-2019(O&M)                              -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH

                                 CR-80-2019(O&M)
                                 Date of decision:-15.12.2022
Narender

                                                                 ...Petitioner
                   Versus

Sub-Divisional Officer and another
                                                               ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN

Present:    Mr.R.S. Dhull, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr.Randeep Tanwar, Advocate for
            Mr.P.K. Dwivedi, Advocate
            for respondents No.1 and 2.

            Mr.CP Tiwana, Advocate
            for respondent No.3.

                          ****
H.S. MADAAN, J.

1. In nutshell, facts of the case are that plaintiff Narender had

filed a suit for declaration and injunction against Sub-Divisional Officer,

Operation Sub Division UHBVN Pundri, District Kaithal and Uttar

Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as UHBVN Ltd.)

through Managing Director, Panchkula restraining the defendants from

disconnecting the electricity connection bearing No.AP-1019 installed in

land bearing Khewat No.1762-63, khatoni No.2191, rect.no.195, killa

Nos.18, 19, 20 comprised in two kittas as per jamabandi for the year

2013-14 within the revenue estate of village Pai, Tehsil Pundri, District

Kaithal.

2. As per the case of the plaintiff, initially the connection was

1 of 9

CR-80-2019(O&M) -2-

issued in the name of Ram Sarup son of Ranpat father of the plaintiff and

after his death the plaintiff along with his brother Gajender Singh moved

an application before the defendants to get the connection transferred in

their name; accordingly, the defendants changed the ownership with

regard to connection in the name of plaintiff; since then the plaintiff have

been regularly paying the electricity bills, however, the defendants issued

notice bearing No.MN-1671 dated 12.6.2017 calling upon the plaintiff to

submit original documents regarding change of name of said connection

as they were not satisfied with the report of Patwari; the plaintiff did

submit those documents but the defendants again issued a notice dated

14.9.2017 threatening to change/cancel the electricity connection from the

name of plaintiff; the plaintiff got the demarcation of the land conducted

and it transpired that a tubewell is installed in killa no.19, rect. No.195,

however due to mistake of revenue officials said tubewell connection was

shown in killa no.18 of rect. no.195 and for that reason, defendants

threatened to cancel the transfer of said connection in the name of plaintiff

and to disconnect the connection forcibly and illegally to which they have

no right. On refusal of defendants to concede his claim, the plaintiff had

filed the suit in question. Along with that suit, he moved an application for

grant of ad interim injunction.

3. On getting notice, the defendants put in appearance and filed

written statement and written reply contesting the suit as well as

application for grant of ad interim injunction. As per version of the

defendants, the plaintiff had applied for changing the name of the

electricity connection from the name of his father to his name as well as

2 of 9

CR-80-2019(O&M) -3-

that of his brother Gajender Singh in the month of February, 2016 along

with the documents, which included copy of jamabandi for the year 2013-

14 duly verified by the Halqa Patwari on 22.6.2015 pertaining to land

comprised in Khewat No.1762/1626, khatoni No.2191, rect. no.195, killa

no.18 and 19 within revenue estate of village Pai Tehsil Pundri, District

Kaithal and Aksh-sizra pertaining to killa no.18 of rect. no.195 verified by

the patwari on 2.7.2013; the jamabandi revealed that one tubewell

connection was installed in killa no.18 and the plaintiff along with his

brother Gajender Singh was owner of the land in question; the plaintiff

and his brother Gajender Singh had submitted their duly sworn affidavits ,

therefore, the electric connection was transferred in the name of plaintiff;

thereafter, one Raghvinder son of Ram Sarup moved an application in the

office of Executive Engineer Operation Division, UHBVN, Pundri

contending that connection in dispute is being run in his fields but had

been wrongly transferred in the name of plaintiff; he further requested to

get spot verification done by revenue patwari; the Executive Engineer

vide his letters bearing No.Ch.177/EB-20 dated 24.3.2017 and

Ch.179.EB-20 dated 7.4.2017 had directed SDO, Sub Division No.2,

UHBVN, Pundri to investigate the matter and submit his report; SDO

accordingly inquired into the matter and upon physical verification he

found that connection in dispute is being run in village Pai in the name of

Ram Sarup son of Ranpat, who died on 27.7.2008; Ram Sarup had four

sons namely Narender Kumar, plaintiff, Gajender, Raghuvinder and

Rajinder; during inquiry Raghuvinder produced the report by Halqa

Patwari from which it was found that a tubewell connection was being run

3 of 9

CR-80-2019(O&M) -4-

in killa no.13/8/1 of khasra no.195; Raghuvinder further produced another

report of Halqa Patwari wherein no tubewell connection was found in

killa No.18 of rect. no.195; defendant No.1 vide office memo no.1671

dated 12.6.2017 asked the plaintiff to explain the facts but the plaintiff did

not respond; a reminder was sent to him vide memo dated 14.9.2017; the

plaintiff submitted his reply but the same was not found to be satisfactory;

on 2.2.2018, defendant no.1 along with Ram Kumar and Vinod Jangra,

Junior Engineers and Dharambir, Lineman inspected the fields of the

plaintiff in his presence finding the plaintiff to be consuming direct supply

of the connection from LT Pole with the help of 4 Core PVC without any

connection; accordingly, LL-1 report was prepared, which plaintiff

refused to sign; the videography of the proceedings was got done and the

plaintiff was served with notice of assessment of penalty dated 5.2.2018

and Rs.30,000/- was imposed as penalty. It is contended that plaintiff had

intentionally not impleaded his brother Raghuvinder as a party in the suit,

therefore, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The

defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit and application.

4. After hearing arguments, the trial Court of Civil Judge

(Jr.Divn.), Kaithal vide order dated 8.2.2018 directed the parties to

maintain status quo qua the connection till the disposal of the suit.

5. Feeling aggrieved by that order, plaintiff Narender had

preferred an appeal before District Judge, Kaithal, which was assigned to

learned Additional District Judge, who vide judgment dated 28.9.2018

allowed the appeal partly and order dated 28.2.2018 was modified to the

extent that defendants are restrained from recovering whole of the penalty

4 of 9

CR-80-2019(O&M) -5-

amount till final disposal of the case.

6. However, the plaintiff Narender felt dissatisfied with the

order and has approached this Court by way of filing the present revision

petition, notice of which was issued to respondents, who put in

appearance.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going

through the record.

8. Ad interim injunction dealt with by Order 39 Rules 1 & 2

CPC is a discretionary equitable relief, which is to be granted by the Court

keeping in view all the facts and circumstances including the conduct of

the parties, if the necessary ingredients for grant thereof are fulfilled, to

say the plaintiff having a good prima facie case, balance of convenience

being in favour of the plaintiff and plaintiff suffering irreparable loss and

injury in case of denial of ad interim injunction with all those ingredients

existing conjunctively. For laying basis for grant of permanent injunction,

a person approaching the Court must do so with clean hands disclosing all

the material facts and if he or she tries to conceal any material fact from

the Court, then such relief is not to be granted. Clause (i) of Section 41 of

the Specific Relief Act provides that an injunction cannot be granted when

the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been such as to disentitle him

to the assistance of the Court.

9. In light of such basic principles if the case of the plaintiff is

examined then it comes out that petitioner/plaintiff is certainly not entitled

to grant ad interim injunction. The trial Court without due application of

mind and keeping in view the relevant legal position disposed of the

5 of 9

CR-80-2019(O&M) -6-

application directing the parties to maintain status quo over the connection

till disposal of the suit. Such order goes to show that the trial Court lacked

clarity of vision in the matter and was unable to reach a clear conclusion

under the circumstances of the case. As it borne out from the record

plaintiff Narender had applied for changing the electricity connection

from the name of his father to his name as well as that of his brother

Gajender in the month of February, 2016 enclosing copy of jamabandi for

the year 2013-14 with such application. That jamabandi pertained to land

Khewat No.1762/1626, khatoni No.2191, rect. no.195, killa no.18 and 19

within revenue estate of village Pai Tehsil Pundri, District Kaithal.

Another document attached i.e. Aksh-sizra pertaining to killa no.18 of

rect. no.195 also verified by the patwari. The jamabandi reflected that the

tubewell connection was there in killa no.18, which was ownership of

plaintiff and his brother Gajender Singh. On that basis of affidavits

submitted by plaintiff and Gajender Singh, the tubewell connection was

transferred in the name of the plaintiff, however, Raghuvinder, a brother

of plaintiff had submitted an application in the office of Executive

Engineer Operational Division, UHBVNL, Pundri that connection to the

tubewell was there in his fields but was wrongly transferred in the name

of the plaintiff. He had requested for spot verification. The officers of

electricity department had inquired into the matter and it was found that

tubewell connection was being run in killa no.13/8/1 of khasra no.195

and as per report of Halqa Patwari no tubewell connection was there in

killa no.18 of rect. no.195. When the electricity department asked the

plaintiff to explain this fact, he opted to remain mum first, however later

6 of 9

CR-80-2019(O&M) -7-

on submitted written response, which was not found to be satisfactory.

Rather on spot inspection being carried out by officers of electricity

department in his presence, the plaintiff was found to be stealing

electricity by consuming a directing supply from LT pole with the help of

4 Core PVC without any connection. The proceedings there were got

videographed and plaintiff was served notice for recovery of penalty of

Rs.30,000/-. Furthermore, the plaintiff had not impleaded his brother

Raghuvinder, who was also an effected party in the matter. For all these

reasons, the plaintiff could not be said to have a good prima facie case or

balance of convenience being in his favour or he is suffering any

irreparable loss and injury in case of denial of ad interim injunction to

him. Rather he comes out to be a scheming type of person using unfair

means to get the tubewell connection transferred in his name not

hesitating to conceal material facts, rather trying to propagate falsehood to

achieve his aim. The trial Court in order has though noticed all these

things but has conveniently opted not to take those into consideration and

found a convenient way of directing the parties to maintain status quo

which is vague type of order having grave consequences, many a times

giving rise to quarrels and fights between the parties. The order passed by

learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal also comes out to be result of a

very casual approach without any attempt to consider the mater in a

proper perspective after trying to understand the factual and legal position

properly. Rather learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal deviated from

the main controversy and restrained the defendants from recovering the

penalty amount imposed upon the plaintiff till final disposal of the case, in

7 of 9

CR-80-2019(O&M) -8-

the process learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal perhaps forgot that

one of the basic ingredients for grant of ad interim injunction is suffering

of irreparable loss and whenever a loss can be calculated in terms of

money normally at ad interim injunction is not granted. Here with specific

allegations of theft of electricity being there against the plaintiff/appellant,

such type of relief should not have been granted by the learned Additional

District Judge to the plaintiff appellant.

10. It may be mentioned here that when the matter came up

before this Court, there also petitioner tried to play over smart as is

evident from the interim orders passed in the case, the petitioner was

successful in getting an order from the Court with regard to restoration of

the electricity connection. The order was passed in that regard on

28.5.2019, However, vide order dated 3.7.2019, the Court observed that

order dated 28.5.2019 appears to have been obtained by dubious means

since in any case the petitioner had failed to implead the applicant

Raghuvinder as one of the necessary parties in the revision petition, after

suppressing that his application for such impleadment had already been

allowed by the trial Court. For that reasons, direction contained in the

earlier order dated 28.5.2019 was recalled.

11. Such conduct of the petitioner/plaintiff is to be viewed with

all the seriousness and not lightly. Granting a discretionary equitable relief

to a litigant who indulges in unfair practise of concealing material facts

adopting dubious means and whose conduct is otherwise shoddy is most

uncalled for and that would rather result in failure of justice.

12. Here it may be mentioned that both the impugned orders are

8 of 9

CR-80-2019(O&M) -9-

arbitrary, perverse and passed ignoring the necessary ingredients provided

under Section 41 (i) of the Specific Relief Act, which provides that

injunction would be refused when conduct of plaintiff has been such as to

disentitle him to the assistance of the Court.

13. The revision petition is without merit and the same stands

dismissed. While exercising power under Section 227 of the Constitution

of India, the order passed by the trial Court as well as by learned

Additional District Judge, Kaithal are also set aside, resultantly,

application for ad interim injunction filed by the applicant/plaintiff is

dismissed.

Since the main revision petition has been dismissed, the

miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

15.12.2022                                          (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij                                                    JUDGE

Whether reasoned/speaking :              Yes/No

Whether reportable               :       Yes/No




                                     9 of 9