IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 17.02.2026 Dera Rishi Thakur Dass Haripur Khalsa and Anr ... Petitioners Versus Madan Lal and Anr ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the petitioners.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. Present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioners challenging the orders dated 11.07.2022 and 03.09.2024 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court respectively.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- petitioners herein filed a suit simpliciter for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-respondents herein from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-petitioners over the suit property and further from dispossessing them from the suit property. Alongwith the suit an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was also filed for restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering in the peaceful use of the electric tubewell connection. Reply was filed to the said application. Vide order dated 11.07.2022 the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court holding that neither a prima facie case was made out in favour of the plaintiff-petitioners nor balance of convenience lay in their favour. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred which was partly allowed vide order dated 03.09.2024. Hence, the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners would contend that the plaintiff-petitioners had purchased the suit property from Mohan Singh in whose name the connection was standing. It is further the contention that the tubewell is in the same khasra number as the suit property and therefore the plaintiff-petitioners have an exclusive right to use the same.

4. Heard.

5. In the present case the case of the plaintiff-petitioners was that he had purchased the land vide sale deeds dated 16.09.1997 and 23.09.1997 from Harjinder Pal Singh and Satya respectively. In both the sale deeds the right to use the share in the tubewell has been clearly stated. Further still, both the Courts have concurrently found that the connection in dispute exists on khasra number 59//16 (7-16) and stands in the name of Mohan Singh. Mohan Singh is not the vendor of the plaintiff-petitioners herein as is apparent from both the sale deeds, which have been appended with the petition as Annexures P-7 and P-8. There is no explanation coming as to why the legal representatives of Mohan Singh have not been impleaded as they would be necessary party for adjudication of the matter in hand. Further still, the defendant-respondents, as per both the orders passed by the Trial Court and the Frist Appellate Court, had produced on record various documents/receipts wherein it was shown that the defendant-respondents have been making payments for use of the said tubewell connection.

6. In view of what has been discussed above, neither the prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiff-petitioners nor the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff-petitioners as they have failed to show any exclusive right or ownership of the tubewell. In view thereof, the present revision petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

7. Nothing mentioned in this order shall have any bearing on the merits of the main suit.

17.02.2026 ( ALKA SARIN )

jk JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO