The main legal point established in the judgment is that the relief sought under Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be supplemental to the main suit, and a defendant has no right to seek temporary injunction or interlocutory order unless in a position envisaged under Order 39, Rule 1(a).

JUDGMENT

Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed order dated 18.09.2019, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No. 2, Una, District Una, H.P. in an application filed Under Section 94 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the present petitioner before the said Court, vide which, a direction was sought by the present petitioner against respondent No. 1 herein to restore electricity supply of the room, subject matter of the Civil Suit which has been filed by respondent Fateh Singh against the present petitioner as well as Desh Raj.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she had filed an application under Sections 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, for grant of interim relief as well as for mental stress caused to her on account of disconnection of electricity supply to her room by Shri Fateh Singh (father-in-law of the present petitioner). This application was dismissed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Una, H.P. on 04.12.2018. Feeling aggrieved, she filed CMPNO. No. 14 of 2019, titled as Kirna vs. Fateh Singh and another. This petition was disposed of by this Court in the following terms:-

"The learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks permission, of this Court, to withdraw the instant petition. Permission granted. Accordingly, the instant petition, is, dismissed as withdrawn. However, liberty reserved to the petitioner, to approach the learned Civil Court concerned, where, a, suit for specific performance, and, for possession is pending, for, asking relief compatible, vis-a-vis, the relief, espoused in the instant petition, and, upon the afore motion being made, before the learned Court concerned, the latter shall, in accordance with law, mete a decision thereon, hence, within one week thereafter. All pending application, if any, also stand disposed of."

3. Thereafter, an application was filed by the petitioner in Civil Suit filed against her by Shri Fateh Singh (respondent No. 1 herein) under Section 94 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for issuance of a direction to the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 herein, to restore electricity supply of the disputed room. It was mentioned in the said application that non-applicant Fateh Singh had filed a suit against her and electricity supply of the disputed room, which was in her possession, has been forcibly disconnected by the non-applicant/plaintiff on 25.02.2016, with an ulterior motive just to harass and humiliate her. It was further mentioned in the application that she had filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which was dismissed by the Court and which order was assailed by her before this Court. It was further mentioned in the application that CMPMO filed by her in this Court was disposed of on 04.09.2019, with a direction to her to approach the Court concerned for relief and rendering of decision within a week. It was further mentioned in the application that on account of disconnection of the electricity supply, the applicant was residing in a miserable condition since 25.02.2016 and the act of the non-applicant amounted to infringing the fundamental rights of the applicant as also her children.

4. The application was resisted by the non-applicant inter alia on the ground that he had not disconnected the electricity supply of the room in issue, as, in fact, there was no electricity connection in the demised premises. In was further mentioned in the reply that applicant and her husband had taken the possession of the demised premises in an illegal manner and possession of the applicant and her husband upon the same was that of trespassers.

5. This application stands dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 18.09.2019. While passing the said order, learned Trial Court has inter alia held that whereas it was alleged in the application t