The right to shared resources supersedes claims of exclusive ownership among co-sharers regarding the use of a tubewell electricity connection.

JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal whereby the application filed by defendant No. 1-petitioner herein under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC along with the appeal, was dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 herein filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining defendant No. 1-petitioner from creating any kind of hindrance in the peaceful use of electricity connection bearing account No. L24-1218-214 which was stated to be joint between plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and defendant No. 1-petitioner herein and further from restraining defendant No. 1-petitioner from transferring the said connection in anybody else’s name. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 09.01.2025 passed a decree restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 from irrigating her land from the said tubewell electric connection. However, it was directed that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 would be liable to pay the electricity consumption charges of the tubewell in question as per her share. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by defendant No. 1-petitioner herein. Along with the appeal an application under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC for staying the operation of the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2025 was also filed. Vide impugned order dated 30.01.2025 the said application was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition by defendant No. 1-petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for defendant No. 1-petitioner would contend that the tubewell was never joint and that defendant No. 1-petitioner has been using the tubewell exclusively and paying the electricity charges for the last many years. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the tubewell in question is installed in the killa which is in possession of defendant No. 1- petitioner herein and that all the other co-sharers have given affidavits permitting him to install the tubewell.

4. Heard.

5. In the present case the Trial Court returned a finding on issue No. 1 that as per the Jamabandi for the year 2017-18 (Ex.P-1) the parties were reflected as co-sharers in the suit land to the extent of their respective shares. The Trial Court also returned a finding that the suit land was still joint and it had not been partitioned. Holding that the suit land had not been partitioned, the tubewell installed would hence also be used as a joint source of irrigation. It was further held that plaintiff-respondent No. 1, who was a co-sharer in the suit land, would also have a right to use the electricity connection and the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was also held liable to pay the electricity consumption charges of the tubewell as per her share. The arguments of the learned counsel for defendant No. 1-petitioner that since the tubewell is installed in Rectangle No. 65 Killa No. 5, which is in possession of the defendant No. 1-petitioner and hence defendant No. 1-petitioner is the original owner of the tubewell, cannot be accepted at this stage. Learned counsel for defendant No. 1-petitioner has not been able to show any irreparable loss which would be caused to defendant No. 1-petitioner in case plaintiff-respondent No. 1 continues to irrigate the filed which is admittedly on land which is yet to be partitioned. Allowing the application for stay at this stage would virtually amount to allowing the appeal.

6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.