OM PARKASH Vs. ISHWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this revision petition is to the orders, dated 20.5.2006 and 4.10.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kaithal and the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, dismissing the petitioner's application for temporary injunction, and the appeal respectively.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner states that after partition, the land with the tubewell has fallen to the petitioner's share. however, as the electricity connection was in respondent No. 1's name, it was apprehended that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 could disconnect the electricity connection at the behest of respondent No. 1. It is submitted that in case the parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to disconnection of the electricity connection, the petitioner would not prevent respondent No. 1 from using the tubewell or accessing water flowing therefrom, if required by respondent No. 1.

(3.) COUNSEL for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 states that the dispute is, in essence, between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. The Electricity Board has no role to play except to grant or disconnect electricity connection, in accordance with the rights of the parties.