IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:07.11.2025 Ram Kishan ...Petitioner versus Vikas and Another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Prashant Lather, Advocate for petitioner.

***

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved by impugned orders dated 29.08.2025 and 06.10.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Karnal and learned Additional District Judge, Karnal respectively. Vide impugned orders, application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were dismissed.

2. The simple case of petitioner-plaintiff was that he was owner in possession/co-sharer along with Dhrambir of agricultural land measuring 43 kanals 10 marlas situated in Revenue Estate of Village Shergarh Tapu, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal, Haryana. The details of land were duly described in suit and noticed in judgment dated 06.10.2025 and therefore not being noted again. It was the case of petitioner-plaintiff that he is consumer of defendant No.2 being user of tubewell connection bearing account No.1751981000, installed