RAJE RAM Vs. DIWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 20.10.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, who dismissed the suit filed by the present petitioner Mr. Raje Ram under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :-

(2.) Diwan Singh-respondent No. 1 filed a suit against H.V.P.H. and Raje Ram- present petitioner who was defendant No. 4 in the trial court for permanent injunction. It was alleged by Diwan Singh that he is the owner and in possession of the land in dispute. He moved an application for a direction to defendants No. 1 to 3 for electricity connection in the disputed land for the purpose of running a tubewell. A three phase line from point A to B was installed by defendants 1 to 3 on his expenses. However, a single phase connection from point P to D was given to defendant No. 4 for domestic purposes. It is also alleged by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 that defendant No. 4-the petitioner in collusion with defendants 1 to 3 now wants to take the connection from point B by installing poles in the disputed land illegally. It is averred by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 that defendant No. 4- petitioner cannot be allowed to take his connection from point P because he has borne the entire expenses of three phasing the line from point A to B and if defendant No. 4-petitioner is given electricity from point P, then more electricity poles will be required to be installed in the disputed land. If the electricity connection of defendant No. 4-petitioner is given from the original point, then only two poles will be required to be installed but if the electricity connection is given from point B, four poles will be required to be installed. Therefore, electricity connection of defendant No. 4- petitioner should be released from point C. Along with the suit, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 has filed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure and prayed that during the pendency of the suit, defendants 1 to 3 be restrained from restoring the electricity connection of defendant No. 4-petitioner from point B. Notice of the suit as well as the application was given to the defendants. They filed reply and denied the allegations. The learned trial Court vide order dated 26.9.2000 allowed the application for the following reasons given in para 10 of the order :-

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of the learned trial court, the petitioner- defendant No. 4 had filed an appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, who dismissed the appeal for the reasons given in para 6 of the impugned order dated 20.10.2000 which reads as under :-