TEJA SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code) is directed against the order dated 16.4.2002 passed by the District Judge, Patiala dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff-petitioners in which the order of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala. dated 22.12.2001 was challenged. Vide order dated 22.12.2001, Additional Civil Judge has dismissed the application of the plaintiff-petitioners filed under order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code seeking ad interim stay during the pendency of the suit.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as unfolded in this petition are that the plaintiff-petitioners have filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming that the father of defendant-respondent No. 3 Isher Ram got installed an electric motor in his own name on 21.2.1991 and also deposited security for the connection. It is further claimed that the plaintiff-petitioners contributed in equal share to the amount of security deposited with defendant-respondent No. 1. It is also averred that after the death of Isher Ram demand notice for release of connection was issued in 1993-94 which was received by defendant- respondent No. 3. Asserting that defendant-respondent No. 3 did not have sufficient funds, electric motor connection was got installed on the land belonging to the plaintiff-petitioners and they were jointly irrigating their respective lands with the tube-well connection. Alongwith the suit, an application under order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code was also filed seeking ad interim injunction restraining the defendant- respondents from shifting the electric motor connection from khasra No. 873 to some other land. The application was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge after recording a detailed order on 22.12.2001 and appeal filed against that order met the same fate. Learned district Judge while dismissing the application recorded the following order :

(3.) I have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and do not feel impressed with the same. Argument raised before me has been dealt with and repelled by both the Courts below for the reasons that the electric connection is in the name of Isher Ram the father of defendant- respondent No. 3. It has been asserted by the plaintiff-petitioners that the deposit for the release of electric connection paid to the Punjab State Electricity Board was in fact given by the plaintiff-petitioners and not by defendant-respondent No. 3 or father of defendant-respondent No. 3. In other words, it has been asserted that the father of defendant-respondent No. 3 is a benamidar as the funds for release and installation of electricity connection were provided and paid to the father of defendant-respondent No. 3 by the plaintiff-petitioner. In this context, it is apposite to refer to Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (for brevity, the Act) which read as under :