The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit was barred by Section 145 of the Electricity Act, and the power granted under Section 164 of the Act overrides all other provisions for laying electricity lines.

JUDGMENT

Amol Rattan Singh, J. - By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the learned appellate Court (Additional District Judge, Ludhiana), dated 31.05.2018, setting aside the order passed by the trial court (Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana), dated 11.10.2017, by which the application filed by the petitioner (plaintiff in the suit) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC had been allowed, with the respondents-defendants (Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and its officers) restrained from erecting poles and pillars and from laying overhead high tension electricity lines stated to be running over the land of the petitioner.

2. In fact, the suit filed by the petitioner is also one seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their agents, assigns etc. from erecting poles and pillars and from laying overhead high tension electricity lines along the specified route shown in the site plan attached with the plaint, as was contended to be running above the property of the petitioner, (measuring 12 kanals 1-1/3 marlas land comprised in Khata no.21/22, khasra nos.26//21, 3//1, 10/1 and 2/3 in village Choley, Hadbast no.114, Tehsil and District Ludhiana), as per the jamabandi for the year 2005-2006.

Further, a decree of mandatory injunction has also been sought by the petitioner-plaintiff, directing the respondents-defendants 'to deviate the existing line' as shown in green colour in the site plan attached with the plaint, to a more practical, economical and convenient route (as is stated to be shown in the colour yellow), so as to connect the high tension wires to the power station (described to be in the colour orange in the site plan).

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents, with malafide intentions, have arbitrarily exercised power and have deviated from laying down the electricity lines in a straight line and in fact have 'made' a circuitous route, thereby leading to erection of more towers, also resulting in loss of electricity during transmission.

4. Before the trial court, it had been contended by the petitioner that he had reason to believe that no approval had been sought from the Central Electricity Authority prior to the line being laid and further, that he (petitioner-plaintiff) had not received any notice, nor had any official publication been made in the newspaper, inviting objections. It was therefore contended that an irreparable loss was suffered by the plaintiff; the case set up in the plaint also being that he had made a horse riding facility for his daughter on the said land, which would be rendered useless on account of electricity lines running overhead.

5. Notice having been issued to the respondents-defendants by the trial court, a preliminary objection had been taken by them that the suit itself was not maintainable and further, that the plaintiff had not come with clean hands.

On merits, it had been stated that vide a notification issued on July 25, 2014, various schemes had been proposed to be undertaken for the purpose of distribution of power, in order to improve the transmission and distribution system of electricity.

It was also stated that as a matter of fact they had made a publication of the schemes in two newspapers, despite which no objections were received.

Further, (as stated in the order of the learned trial court), the respondents-defendants had also contended that an estimate for the work was prepared and in fact more than 90% of it had been executed as per the estimate.

Hence, dismissal of the suit, as also the application seeking an interim injunction, was sought.

6. Having considered the pleadings and the arguments before it, the trial court first observed that as per the site plan annexed with the plaint, electricity wires would be running through the suit property, with the plaintiff having subsequently also contended that an alternative route could have been taken to lay down the lines.

That court then recorded a finding that