Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam And ... vs Raj Kumari on 3 September, 2024
Author: Rajbir Sehrawat
Bench: Rajbir Sehrawat
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114939
RSA-2192-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
118 RSA-2192-2024 (O & M)
Date of decision: 03.09.2024
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Badrola and another
...Appellants
Versus
Raj Kumari ...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT
Present:- Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate,
for the appellants.
****
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (Oral)
CM-8939-C-2024
1. Allowed as prayed for.
CM-8937-C-2024
1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
seeking condonation of delay of 28 days in filing the present regular second
appeal.
2. In view of the grounds mentioned in the application, the same
is allowed and delay of 28 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.
RSA-2192-2024
1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent
judgments, decrees and the findings recorded by both the courts below,
whereby the suit for mandatory injunction and declaration with
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114939
consequential relief of permanent injunction, filed by the respondent-
plaintiff has been decreed and the appeal filed by the appellants-defendants
has been dismissed by the lower Appellate Court.
2. The facts, in brief, as involved in the case, are that the
plaintiff-respondent asserted that she had applied for a new electricity
connection at her premises, which was released to her bearing account
No.NN-13/1723. However, later on, the respondents disconnected the
electricity connection of the plaintiff on the ground that an amount of
Rs.3,33,888/- was outstanding against the old electricity connection bearing
account No.NE-31/0015, which was owned by the previous owner of the
premises. It was also asserted that the plaintiff had no concern with the said
electricity connection at all. Therefore, she was not liable to pay any
money, as such.
3. After appreciating the material on record, the trial Court
decreed the suit, vide judgment and decree dated 21.08.2023. Feeling
aggrieved against the same, the defendant-appellants filed the appeal before
the lower Appellate Court. However, the same was also dismissed, vide
impugned judgment and decree dated 13.03.2024.
4. Challenging both the above-said judgments and decrees, the
present appeal has been filed.
5. Although, learned senior counsel for the appellants has
vehemently argued the appeal, however, no material could be pointed out by
him, which might have been led on the record by the appellant-defendants
to establish the alleged recovery of Rs.3,33,888/-, against the plaintiff.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114939
Therefore, there is nothing wrong with the judgments and decrees passed by
the Courts below.
6. Otherwise also, the present appeal is directed against the
concurrent judgments, decrees and the findings of fact recorded by both the
Courts below. However, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
Courts below are not even to be interfered with only for possibility of
arriving at a different conclusion on re-appreciation of the evidence; unless
there is an abject perversity shown to the Court or some substantial question
of law is involved in the matter. However, learned senior counsel for the
appellants has not been able to highlight any substantial question of law
involved in the matter and this Court does not find any perversity in the
findings recorded by both the Courts below.
7. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present appeal, the
same is dismissed.
8. The pending miscellaneous application, if any, is also disposed
of as such.
03.09.2024 (RAJBIR SEHRAWAT)
parveen kumar JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
3 of 3
