Electricity connections are governed by statutory regulations and are not transferable property between consumers. Furthermore, documents must be proved through the examination of attesting witnesses, and additional evidence cannot be admitted if the party failed to produce it during the trial despite knowledge of its existence.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

CM-3032-C-2023

1. The present application has been instituted by the applicant– appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of a delay of 40 days in preferring the appeal.

2. Upon due consideration of the averments set forth in the application, and being satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown which prevented the applicant from instituting the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, this Court deems it appropriate, in the interest of substantial justice, to condone the delay of 40 days.

CM-3034-C-2023

3. Accordingly, the application stands allowed, and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

4. The present application has been preferred by the applicant– appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking condonation of a delay of 40 days in re-filing the appeal.

5. Having considered the grounds and reasons delineated in the application, and being satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay occasioned in re-filing, this Court finds it appropriate, in furtherance of the cause of substantial justice, to condone the said delay.

5.1. Accordingly, the application stands allowed, and the delay of 40 days in re-filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

Main Case

6. The present appeal has been instituted by the appellant– plaintiff assailing the concurrent judgments and decrees dated 25.02.2022, whereby the learned First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2016 passed by the learned Trial Court, dismissing the suit instituted by the appellant–plaintiff.

7. A conspectus of the material facts reveals that the appellant– plaintiff instituted a suit seeking a decree of mandatory injunction directing defendant No.1 to effect transfer of an electricity connection bearing Account No. 9507 dated 13.09.1990 in his favour, in terms of an affidavit dated 25.05.2006, along with a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 to 3 from shifting the said connection from land comprised in Khasra No.53, situated within the revenue estate of village Salampur Jattan, Tehsil Rajpura, to any other parcel of land. The claim was premised on the assertion that defendant No.1 had allegedly transferred the said electricity connection to the appellant–plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.23,000/-, duly acknowledging the same through the aforesaid affidavit, but subsequently resiled from effecting its transfer and threatened to relocate the connection elsewhere.

7.1. Defendant No.1, in his written statement, categorically denied any such transaction, asserting that no sale of the electricity connection had ever taken place. It was further contended that an application had been moved for shifting the connection from Khasra No.53 to Khasra No.92, inasmuch as the land comprised in Khasra No.53 had been exchanged with the appellant–plaintiff. It was also specifically pleaded that the electricity connection, being the property of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), could not be alienated or transferred by a consumer. Defendants No.2 and 3 also resisted the suit on the ground that, in terms of the applicable regulations of PSPCL, such a transfer was impermissible.

7.2. Upon trial, the suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Court, and the appeal preferred thereagainst w