High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Jai Singh. v. Baaz Singh & Ors. - CR-5979-2005  RD-P&H 7272 (15 September 2006)
C.R.No.5979 of 2005
Date of decision : 22.9.2006.
Baaz Singh & Ors.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present : Mr. B.S.Guliani, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh K. Sharma, Advocate
for respondents No. 1 to 3.
VINOD K. SHARMA,J.( ORAL )
The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 25.10.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide which the order of the trial Court granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner restraining the Punjab State Electricity Board from shifting the transformer from the land of the petitioner has been set aside.
The learned lower appellate Court has come to the conclusion that plaintiff-petitioner had no right to dictate the terms to Punjab State Electricity Board and compel it to keep its transfer at a particular place. The learned lower appellate Court further came to the conclusion that Punjab State Electricity Board being the supplier of the electricity, was the best judge to see as to where the transformer is to be installed or shifted in the best interest of the supply.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this act of the respondent Punjab State Electricity Board is totally arbitrary as they have not produced any scheme before the trial Court for shifting of transformers nor they have given any reasons as to why the necessity arose for shifting of the transformer from the fields of the petitioner and while doing so they have not taken note of the fact that electricity supplied to the petitioner is likely to be adversely affected.
In order to succeed in getting injunction, the petitioner was to show a prima facie case as well as balance of convenience and irreparable loss which was likely to be caused to him. The petitioner was not able to show as to what irreparable loss he is likely to suffer in shifting the transformer, as admittedly, he has no right to have transformer installed in his fields as the Punjab State Electricity Board is the expert and, therefore, it was open to the Punjab State Electricity Board to shift the transformer in best interest of the supply of the electricity and their decision to do so cannot be interferred with.
The learned lower appellate Court was right in not to interfere with the said decision in an application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. The apprehension of the petitioner that his electricity supply is likely to be adversely affected is misconceived. The learned counsel for the respondent has categorically stated that the electricity supplied, being consumed by the petitioner, is not to be adversely affected.
Rather the shifting of transformer would be in the best interest of the consumers and, therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned lower appellate Court.
However, it is made clear that anything observed shall not be taken to be finding on merits in the case. The trial Court is to decide the suit on merit on appreciation of evidence to be produced at trial.
September 22,2006 ( VINOD K. SHARMA )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.