SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
SDO, CONST., HVPN, KAITHAL & ORS – Appellant
Versus
HARI CHAND & ANR – Respondent
CR 6887/2009



C.R. No.6887 of 2009

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

C.R. No.6887 of 2009

Date of Decision:09.08.2010

S.D.O., Construction HVPN Jakholi Adda Jind Road, Kaithal

and others

.....Petitioners.

Vs.

Hari Chand and another

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH

Present:-

Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jaiveer Chandail &

Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocates for the respondent.

****

ALOK SINGH, J.

The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 5.10.2009

passed by Additional District Judge, Kaithal whereby the appellate court

allowed the appeal and further allowed the ad-interim injunction application

under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC moved by the plaintiff- respondent

therein restraining the petitioners- defendants not to lay down any line over

the property of the plaintiff- respondent.

Both the counsel appearing before me fairly stated that a

technical feasible report could have been got by the learned trial Court or by

the learned appellate Court to appreciate as to whether laying down line

over the property of the plaintiff is must or property of the plaintiff can be

C.R. No.6887 of 2009

-2-

avoided as per the technical feasibility of the laying down of the power line.

Both the counsel appearing before me further stated that the

trial Court should be directed to refer the matter under Order 26 Rule 10A

CPC to the Expert Committee consisting of three Electrical Engineers

under the Chairmanship of Senior Engineer of Power Grid Corporation of

India and having two members, one from the defendants- petitioners and

one from the distribution division of Haryana Vidtyut Prasaran Nigam.

Both the counsel further argued that let report be called by the

trial Court from such Expert Committee as a court commission within such

time as learned trial court deems fit and thereafter, the trial court shall be at

liberty to proceed with the matter and to modify the order of injunction.

Present petition is being disposed of with the consent of learned

counsel appearing for both the parties in the following terms:-

1.

Learned trial court shall appoint a court commission under Order 26

Rule 10A CPC and shall refer the same to the Technical Expert

Committee under the Chairmanship of Senior Engineer of

Power Grid Corporation of India consisting of other two

members one from the petitioners and one from the HVPN

Distribution Division;

2.

Expert Committee so appointed shall examine the technical feasibility

as to whether property of the plaintiff can be avoided from the

laying down of the line in question and shall submit the report

before the trial Court within a month from the date, matter is

referred to them; and

3.

Learned trial court shall be at liberty after considering the report

C.R. No.6887 of 2009

-3-

submitted before it under order 26 rule 10A to pass appropriate

order including the order of discharge of the injunction.

Both the parties shall appear before the learned trial Court on

18.8.2010 for further direction.

The present petition stands disposed of with the consent of

learned counsel for the parties.

August 09, 2010

( ALOK SINGH )

renu

JUDGE

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top