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

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 80133

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUKHWINDER SINGH – Appellant
Versus
THE CHAIRMAN PSPCL THE MALL PATIALA AND OTHERS – Respondent
RSA_2201_2024



##PAGE1##

RSA-2201-2024 (O&M) 1 of 7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

130 RSA-2201-2024 (O&M)

Date of decision: 14.05.2026

Sukhwinder Singh ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Chairman, PSPCL, The Mall Patiala and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. R.S.Chauhan, Advocate

for the appellant.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The plaintiff is in Second Appeal against the concurrent

judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts, whereby the suit

filed by the appellant for permanent injunction, has been dismissed by

both the District Courts.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/appellant had filed a

Suit for Permanent Injunction interalia “……restraining the defendants,

their agents ofÏcials, agents and representatives from disconnecting the

supply of electricity Tubewell connections bearing A/c No. K/1230AP, 2HP

and A/c No.K2/655 installed in the land of the plaintiff and his co-sharers

bearing Khasra No. 51//8/1, 13/2 and 44//5/2, situated at Village Bhohru,

Tehsil and District Amritsar in any manner whatsoever may be.”

3. It was the pleaded case of the appellant that originally land

bearing khasra No. 51//8/1, 13/2 and 44/5/2 was owned by Chanan Singh,

DIVYANSHI

2026.05.15 15:57

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE2##

RSA-2201-2024 (O&M) 2 of 7

grand father of the plaintiff. After his death, the said land was inherited by

plaintiff, Shamsher Singh, and Amandeep Singh. Plaintiff had got half

share from the said land. It was averred that there were two tube well

electric connections bearing account no. A/1230AP, 2HP; and account No.

K2655 in the above said land. Plaintiff and other co-sharers used to

irrigate the said land from the said tubewells. In 1993, ofÏcials of the

defendant had tried to disconnect the connection. Plaintiff had filed Civil

Suit bearing Nos. 141/93 and 190/93; and during the pendency of the said

suits, the Sub Divisional OfÏcer of the respondent-Corporation had

suffered a statement and tube well connections were restored after

completing all formalities. It was alleged that on 21.06.2017, ofÏcials of

the defendant-Corporation visited the land of plaintiff and threatened to

disconnect the tube well connection illegal and forcibly. Hence, present

suit was filed on 13.05.2019.

4. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the

parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar had dismissed

the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 25.11.2019. The

Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned Additional

District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 18.03.2024.

Hence, the present second appeal by the plaintiff.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia submits that

despite the fact that appellant had produced material evidence on record;

and despite the admission made by the respondents, suit of the appellant

has been erroneously dismissed without appreciating the material evidence

DIVYANSHI

2026.05.15 15:57

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE3##

RSA-2201-2024 (O&M) 3 of 7

on record. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the

appellant discharged his onus by producing ample evidence. It is pointed

out that the order passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amritsar

dated 13.03.1997 was produced on record as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and the

receipt of amount deposited as Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. Even the death certificate

of Chanan Singh and Balwant Singh as well as Will executed by Chanan

Singh were produced on record as Ex.P5, Ex.P6 and Ex.P7. It is submitted

that even the documentary evidence has been ignored by learned District

Courts. Thus, the impugned judgments and decrees have been passed in a

mechanical manner and the contentions and arguments raised by the

appellant have not been considered, which shows non-application of

judicious mind.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the

respondents led the evidence and examined Executive Engineer Manpreet

Singh, SDO, Sarai Amanat

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top