Sohan Lal Son Of Sh. Kanaram @ ... vs Sahayak Abhiyanta (Vidyut)
2021 Latest Caselaw 6006 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12161/2021

Sohan Lal Son Of Sh. Kanaram @ Ramkaran, Aged About 61
Years, Resident Of Village Jakhal, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.     Sahayak Abhiyanta (Vidyut), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam
       Limited,      Gudhagodji,           Tehsil       Udaipurwati,      District
       Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
2.     Adhishashi Abhiyanta (Pawas), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam
       Limited, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu
       (Raj.)
3.     Shishram Choudhary Son Of Karnaram @ Ramkaran,
       Resident Of Meghli Dhani, Tan Jakhal, Tehsil Nawalgarh,
       District Jhunjhunu.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Surendra Singh
For Respondent(s)         :



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

                                     Order

27/10/2021

Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

challenging the order dated 22.09.2021 whereby the application

submitted by the applicant-respondent No.3 under Order 1 Rule

10 CPC was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated

22.09.2021.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a

suit for permanent injunction before the learned Trial court with a

prayer that the respondent-defendant-Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam

Limited be restrained from disconnecting the electricity connection

(2 of 3) [CW-12161/2021]

of the tubewell situated over the land, belonging to the petitioner-

plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit proceedings, the

applicant-respondent No.3, who is a real brother of the petitioner-

plaintiff filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being

impleaded as a party-defendant in the suit proceedings, which was

allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 22.09.2021.

Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial

Court has committed serious illegality in allowing the application

filed on behalf of the applicant-respondent No3. Counsel further

submits that there is oral partition between three brothers of the

petitioner and the disputed tubewell electricity connection is in

share of the petitioner. Counsel further fairly admits that the land

in dispute is still in the name of deceased father of the petitioner.

In support of his contention, counsel relied upon the

judgments passed by the Calcutta High Court in the matter of

Terai Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kumkum Mittal and Ors, reported in AIR

1994 Cal 191 and the Gauhati High Court in the matter of

Chhaganlal Jain and Ors. Vs. Gauhati Municipal Corporation and

Ors. in (Civil Revision No.278 of 1987), decided on 10.07.1992.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be

dismissed; for the reasons, firstly, the land in dispute where the

tubewell connection is situated is in the name of father of the

petitioner as well as the applicant-respondent No3, secondly,

electric tubewell connection is also in the name of deceased-father

of the petitioner and the applicant-respondent No.3, lastly,

considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the

applicant-respondent No.3 who is a real brother of the petitioner is

(3 of 3) [CW-12161/2021]

a necessary party to the suit proceedings, therefore, the learned

Trial Court has not committed any illegality in allowing the

application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the respondent

No.3.

Hence, the present writ petition stands dismissed.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

Upendra Pratap Singh /134

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)