IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision.:07.03.2025 Kartar Singh …..Appellant Vs.

Kuldeep Singh .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Mandeep Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the applicant- appellant.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

CM-2038-C-2025:

Allowed.

2. Order dated 28.01.2025, whereby main case i.e. RSA-928-2022 was dismissed in default for want of prosecu)on, is hereby recalled. Main case is restored. It be registered at its original number.

Main case is taken up today itself for hearing.

Main case (RSA 928-2022):

3. Suit for decree of permanent injunc)on regarding an electric motor connec)on as per details given in headnote of the plaint, filed by plain)ff Kartar Singh (appellant herein) was dismissed by the trial Court on 11.09.2018. Appeal filed by him has been dismissed by the first Appellate Court on 23.11.2021. Plain)ff of the case has challenged the concurrent findings in this appeal.

4.1 Dispute is regarding electric motor connec)on bearing old account No.8284/3 got installed by the plain)ff on his land bearing Khasra No.1373/5-13 situated in revenue estate of Village Fatehgarh, with new account No.PG-106/AP. It was alleged that defendant was threatening to interfere in the peaceful use of the said electric connec)on of the plain)ff without having any legal right and so, plain)ff prayed for decree of permanent injunc)on.

4.2 Defendant opposed the claim by submi:ng that plain)ff had ½ share in total measuring 134 Bigha 12 Biswa as per Jamabandi for the year 1978-79 and he had transferred his en)re share in favour of his wife Smt. Gurmail Kaur regarding which muta)on No.4532 was sanc)oned. Gurmail Kaur transferred various parcels of land to different persons. She sold 18 Bigha 10 Biswa of land to Talwinder Singh and defendant along with the electricity connec)on in ques)on and ever since then, defendant and his brother Talwinder Singh are using the same. Defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the par)es was taken on record. Trial Court dismissed the suit and Appellate Court upheld the findings, as no)ced earlier.

6. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant-plain)ff that Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on record in right perspec)ve.

7. AAer hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the paper-book, this Court does not find any merit in the conten)on. It has been found by the Courts below that vide sale deed No.1174 dated 14.10.2002 (Ex.D2), Gurmail Kaur, the wife of the plain)ff and in whose favour the plain)ff had transferred the property, had sold 18 Bigha 10 Biswa of land in favour of defendant Kuldeep Singh and his brother Talwinder Singh. In the said sale deed, the electric motor of 7.5 HP was specifically men)oned to have been sold to the vendee. It was further no)ced that it was not the case of the plain)ff that electric motor connec)on shown in the sale deed was other than the electric connec)on in dispute. The oral evidence was also found to the effect that it is defendant, who was using the electric motor in ques)on. None of the sons of the plain)ff were examined qua user of the electricity motor connec)on, as it was contended by plain)ff that his sons were now using the same.

8. In view of the abovesaid concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Court below, which are found to be based upon proper apprecia)on of evidence on record, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the same. There is neither illegality nor any perversity.

No merits. Dismissed.

(DEEPAK GUPTA)

JUDGE March 07, 2025 Nee)ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No