Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.: (Oral) - Feeling aggrieved against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the learned courts below, whereby the suit for mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent was decreed, directing the defendant to remove the poles of 66 KV electricity line, as it was blocking the passage, defendant No.1 has approached this Court, by way of instant regular second appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned first appellate court in para 4 of its impugned judgment, are that plaintiff was owner of land measuring 5 Acres (approximately) being co-sharers in the land comprised in khasra nos.112//12/1, 11/1,/11/2,113//14, 112//19/2, 20,113//13, 16/1, 16/2, 17, 113//16/3 situated at village Kartarpur, District Jalandhar. The defendants installed electricity poles of 66 KV electricity line illegally in the rasta mark AB (shown red in the site plant) leading to the land of the plaintiff and other co-sharers which was 2 Karams in width whereas the law did not permit the defendants to install the electricity poles in between the Rasta leading to the lands of farmers. The rasta marked AB has been fully shown in the Aksh Shajra issued by Halqa Patwari. Many years ago, land situated in village Kartarpur and in the nearby areas was wholly owned by Guru Amarjit Singh and his predecessors and after that Guru Amarjit Singh sold away the land to the farmers giving passages leading to the land of farmers. So, the ownership of the Rasta still exists in the name of Rani Kamaljeet Kaur widow of Tikka Karamjeet Singh and Charanjit Singh, both sons of Guru Amarjit Singh in equal shares after the death of Sh.Guru Amarjit Singh. It has further been pleaded that earlier the plaintiff and other co-sharers were allowed by the owners of land adjoining to the Rasta, to go to their fields or to take their tractor/trolley from the side of the poles installed in the Rasta but now they stopped the plaintiff from passing through their fields. It has further been stated that the plaintiff along with his son, who was non resident of India, moved an application to the NRI Sabha, Punjab on 10.08.2010 for removal of electricity poles and then a letter was written by NRI Sabha to defendant No.2, but nothing was done by defendant No.2 in this regard. So, many requests were made by visiting personally by the plaintiff to the defendants either the poles may be removed or shifted to near by place, so that passage leading to the fields of the plaintiff may be cleared, but deaf ears were paid to the request made by the plaintiff with some ulterior reasons. It has further been pleaded that due to blockage of passage, it became difficult for the plaintiff to cultivate or irrigate his fields in proper manner and consequently, he and other co- sharers were suffering loss in every crop.

3. Having been put to notice, defendants appeared and filed their contesting written statement, raising more than one preliminary objections. Plaintiff filed his replication. On completion of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed in the plaint? OPP

2. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as the Power Com has full powers to affix the poles and other equipment on the public as well as on the private property? OPD.

3. Relief.

4. With a view to substantiate their respective stands taken, both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has duly proved his case, by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Accordingly, suit of the plaintiff was decreed, vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 10.1.2014, thereby directing the defendants to remove the poles of 66 KV electricity line leading from Jalandhar to Mustfapur installed in khasra numbers