A High Court in a second appeal cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless a substantial error in law or procedure is shown, and photocopies of documents are inadmissible as evidence without the production of originals or a valid application for secondary evidence.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Defendants are in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts, whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for permanent injunction, has been decreed by both the District Courts.

Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint are that the plaintiffs had purchased Killa No. 26/14/1/1/6 measuring 0K-3M from Jagat in the year 2006 and vacant possession thereof was handed over to the plaintiff. In 2007, plaintiff applied for an electric connection for tubewell to the defendants. All formalities were completed as required. Plaintiff deposited an amount of Rs.20,000/- as security vide receipt dated 27.12.2007, which amount was subsequently refunded by the defendants. Defendants had issued an electric connection to the plaintiff for tubewell in the aforesaid Killa No. 26/14/1/1/6 vide Account No. APOB-1581-W; and old No. SA05-162 in the year 2008. It was averred that since then plaintiff had been regularly paying the electric dues to the defendants and nothing is due towards the plaintiff. It was stated that from the said tubewell/transformer, two other electric connections have also been issued by the defendants to other agriculturists. It is submitted that in March 2016, defendants had visited the spot and threatened the plaintiff to disconnect the electric supply to the tubewell. Plaintiff had requested defendants not to do so. However, to no avail. Hence, present suit was filed on 19.04.2016 seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants from disconnecting electric supply to the tubewell of the plaintiff.

Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gohana had decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 11.02.2021 as follows:

“25. As a sequel of my aforesaid discussion and observations, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed. The defendants are hereby permanently restrained from disconnecting the electricity supply to the tubewell connection of the plaintiff. In the peculiar facts of the present case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File after needful be consigned to the record room.”

The Civil Appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat vide judgment and decree dated 27.09.2024. Hence, the present second appeal by the defendants.

It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned District Courts were in error in non-suiting the appellants as they failed to appreciate that in actual fact, plaintiff had applied for electric connection in the tubewell situated in Killa No. 48/23. This fact is established from the application and Agreement Form dated 24.11.2006 submitted by the plaintiff. Defendants had also released tubewell connection to the plaintiff over Killa No. 48/23 only. But subsequently, the plaintiff had illegally shifted the said tubewell connection to some other land without submitÝng any application for shifting the connection. However, these facts have not been appreciated by the learned District Court in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Thus, the said judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts are contrary to the law, pleadings and evidence on record; and therefore, cannot be sustained.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the District Courts had not considered the documents produced by the defendants in evidence Ex.D1 to D4 being photocopy. It is clear from the application of Plaintiff had applied for tubewell connection in Killa No.48/23 and connection was released for this number. But thereafter plaintiff shifted the tubewell in some other land illegally. The tubewell connection was not for killa no.26/14/1/1/6 rather for killa No.48/23. It could be revealed from the statement of DW1 categorically admitted in cross examination that now