Satpal Banga vs Sdo Pseb Distt Hoshirpur And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 4239 P&H

                                                                                                 2023:PHHC:052097

                                   RSA-89-2018 (O&M)                                                            1


                                   242

                                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                                                CHANDIGARH

                                                                                     RSA-89-2018 (O&M)
                                                                                     Reserved on : 12.04.2023
                                                                                     Date of decision : 17.04.2023


                                   Satpal Banga                                                           ....Appellant

                                                                        Versus

                                   SDO, PSEB, Saila Khurd and Others                                   ....Respondents



                                   CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN



                                   Present :         Mr. Arunjeet Singh Kakkar, Advocate for the appellant.



                                   ALKA SARIN, J.

CM-111-C-2018

This is an application for condonation of delay of 19 days in

refiling the appeal.

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 19 days in

refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed off.

RSA-89-2018 (O&M)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant

who has been unsuccessful before both the Courts below.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-

appellant filed a suit for perpetual mandatory injunction directing the

defendant-respondents to remove the electricity poles, transformer, YOGESH SHARMA 2023.04.17 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh 2023:PHHC:052097

electricity wires and other accessories attached with the said transformer

from the site 'ABCD' as shown in the plan attached with the plaint. The case

set-up by the plaintiff-appellant was that he was owner in possession of a

residential house as fully described in the head-note of the plaint and that the

defendant-respondents had illegally, forcibly and at the back of the plaintiff-

appellant installed the transformer and electricity poles along with wires and

other accessories in the house of the plaintiff-appellant. It was further

averred that a civil suit titled as Sat Pal Versus Punjab State Electricity

Board was filed which was dismissed on technical ground. On notice, a

written statement was filed raising preliminary objection that the plaintiff-

appellant had not approached the Court with clean hands. On merits, the

ownership of the plaintiff-appellant over the house was admitted except the

portion where the electric poles of the defendant-respondents were existing.

It was further averred that the plaintiff-appellant had earlier filed a civil suit

which was dismissed. The plaintiff-appellant went in appeal against the said

judgment and decree wherein the Appellate Court held that the defendant-

respondents would remove at their own expenses the L.T. Pole from the

courtyard of the plaintiff-appellant and that the defendant-respondents had

the right to repair the damaged poles and to install new poles and

transformer on the existing place. Replication was filed controverting the

stand taken in the written statement and reiterating the stand taken in the

plaint. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were

framed by the Trial Court :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory

injunction as prayed for ? OPP YOGESH SHARMA 2023.04.17 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh 2023:PHHC:052097

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent

injunction as prayed for ? OPP

3. Whether the site plan produced by the plaintiff is

not correct ? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing suit by

his act, conduct and admission ? OPD

5. Whether the suit is hit by the principle of res

judicata ? OPD

6. Relief.

3. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 01.11.2006

held that the matter stood finally decided in the earlier litigation and the

plaintiff-appellant could not reagitate the matter in the present suit.

Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellant

which appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated

24.02.2009. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant would contend that

the poles installed by the defendant-respondents affect the utility and value

of the property and that the installing of the transformer, poles and electricity

wires would cause irreparable loss and damage to the plaintiff-appellant.

5. Heard.

6. It has concurrently been found by both the Courts below that in

the earlier round of litigation the Appellate Court had modified the judgment

and decree of the Trial Court with a direction to the defendant-respondents

to remove at their own expenses the L.T. pole installed in the courtyard of

the plaintiff-appellant within a month from the date of the order. However, YOGESH SHARMA 2023.04.17 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh 2023:PHHC:052097

as per the undertaking, it was made clear that the plaintiff-appellant herein

would not be entitled to any compensation for the transformer and poles

erected in his property. By way of the present suit the plaintiff-appellant

wanted to reagitate the matter which is directly and substantially the same as

in the previous litigation. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has not

been able to convince this Court that the findings in the earlier round of

litigation would not operate as res judicata in the present case. Even

otherwise, there is extra-ordinary delay of 2936 days in filing the present

appeal for which no cogent reasons are forthcoming. Though it has been

stated in the application (CM-504-C-2018) for condonation of delay that the

wife of the plaintiff-appellant was unwell and eventually expired and hence

the plaintiff-appellant was unable to prefer the appeal, however, there is no

document on the record to substantiate the said stand. The present appeal has

been pending since 2017 and till date no document has been brought on the

record by the plaintiff-appellant to substantiate the stand taken by him in the

application.

7. In view of the above, the present appeal, which raises no

question of law much less any substantial question of law, is dismissed on

the ground of delay as well as on merits. Pending applications, if any, also

stand disposed off.

8. Dismissed.

                                                                                          ( ALKA SARIN )
                                   17.04.2023                                                 JUDGE
                                   Yogesh Sharma

NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO YOGESH SHARMA 2023.04.17 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh