136 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-94-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 05.03.2026 SAHAB SINGH .... Petitioner VERSUS DILBAG SINGH AND ORS .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Amit Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner. ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL) 1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17.03.2020 passed by the learned Trial Court and the order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the learned First Appellate Court dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. 2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- petitioner herein filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-respondents No.1 and 2 from interfering in the peaceful use of electricity connection bearing No.SL-61-1066 (earlier installed in Killa No.12 and now in Killa No.13) as fully described in the plaint. Along with the suit, an application was also filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Reply was filed to the said application. The Trial Court vide order dated 17.03.2020 dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff- AMAN JAIN 2026.03.06 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CR-94-2024 (O&M) -2- petitioner which appeal was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide order dated 12.09.2023. Hence, the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner would contend that it is an admitted case that the land was exchanged by the plaintiff-petitioner and the defendant-respondents No.1 and 2 and that the tubewell fell to the share of the plaintiff-petitioner. Learned counsel would further contend that an affidavit dated 22.11.2013 qua the sale of the tubewell connection was executed for a sale consideration of ₹60,000 by defendant-respondent No.1 wherein it was clearly stated that the connection was purchased by the plaintiff-petitioner from defendant-respondent No.1. 4. Heard. 5. In the present case the case set up by the plaintiff-petitioner is that he purchased the tubewell connection through an affidavit dated 22.11.2013. The said fact was denied by defendant-respondents No.1 and 2. A Local Commissioner had been appointed who had reported that the tubewell connection in question was existing in Killa No.18/2 of Square No.193 and is still in existence in the said Killa. Though the plaintiff-petitioner had taken a stand that the connection was shifted from Killa No.12 to 13 after completing all the formalities, however, no document was placed on the record qua the same. The report of the Local Commissioner dated 25.11.2019 also stated that there was no connection in Killa No.12 or 13. Both the Courts concerned observed that the bills were still being issued in the name of Vakil Singh and mere production of the same by the plaintiff-petitioner would not mean that the payment was being made by him. AMAN JAIN 2026.03.06 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CR-94-2024 (O&M) -3- 6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. 05.03.2026 (ALKA SARIN) Aman Jain JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: Yes/No AMAN JAIN 2026.03.06 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment