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 in his land and regular electricity bills are being paid without any default. Initially, the aforesaid connection was in name of his father Ram Kishan who had expired on 29.12.2007. Thereafter, petitioner-plaintiff had approached defendant No.2 and requested shifting of connection from existing place to another suitable place in the land owned by him. Since defendant No.2 had not bothered to concede to the request of the petitioner-plaintiff, petitioner-plaintiff preferred a suit for mandatory injunction titled as Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others seeking mandate to UHBVNL to shift the aforesaid electricity connection from existing place to another suitable place. The Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Karnal vide its order dated 12.07.2024 relegated petitioner- plaintiff to approach concerned department i.e. UHBVNL. It was directed that the said representation by petitioner-plaintiff shall be decided within 10 days. Petitioner-plaintiff accordingly moved an application with the department for shifting of tubewell connection. The tubewell connection was shifted from existing place to another place, since the connection was/is owned by petitioner-plaintiff. It is the case of petitioner-plaintiff that he had sold away land measuring 01 kanal 02 marlas being 23/308 share of total land comprised in khewat no.147, Khatoni No.193 in the same village to defendant No.1 through registered sale deed No.3309/1 dated 10.07.2018 registered with Sub-Registrar, Karnal. It was asserted that at the time of sale though the land, tubewell, motor, starter, trees and khal were sold away, however, the connection was not sold and mentioned in the sale deed. The connection remained in the name of father of petitioner-plaintiff and therefore defendant No.1 had no right over the same. It is the case of petitioner-plaintiff that now defendant No.2 in collusion with defendant No.1 has directed petitioner-plaintiff to appear before defendant No.2 on 09.04.2025 regarding tubewell connection. The petitioner-plaintiff had challenged letter dated 04.04.2025 to be illegal, null and void and not binding on the legal rights of the petitioner-plaintiff and prayed that same be declared illegal, null and void. Along with his suit, petitioner-plaintiff had preferred application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

3. Defendant No.1 contested the suit as well as application for interim injunction. Preliminary objections as regards to maintainability and suppression of facts were taken. It was asserted that on 29.06.2022, defendant No.1 had filed an application before defendant No.2 regarding change of name in the aforesaid tubewell connection bearing No.1751981000 and in the meanwhile on 04.08.2022 brot