CR-2486 of 2024 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 121 AT CHANDIGARH CR-2486 of 2024 (O&M) Date of decision : March 19, 2025 Shero Devi and another ...... Petitioners Versus Harkesh Chand and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA *** Present : Mr. Lalit Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. *** DEEPAK GUPTA, J (Oral) CM-5312-CII-2025 For the reasons mentioned in the application, application is allowed. Annexure A-1 is taken on record. CR-2486 of 2024 1. The dispute pertains to user of a tubewell which is installed in the joint land of the parties. The electricity connection is in the name of the appellants/defendants and taking benefits thereof they were interfering in the user of the said connection by plaintiff. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction. Along with the suit an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was moved which was allowed by the trial court on 01.10.2022. The appeal filed by the defendant (petitioner herein) was dismissed by the appellate court on 12.12.2023. 2. Assailing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment passed by this Court in Uttam Singh Vs. Sohan Singh 2010 (4) PLR 120 in order to contend that when the electricity connection is in the name of the defendant- ARCHANA ARORA 2025.03.20 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2486 of 2024 (O&M) 2 appellant and payment of electricity bill is made by him so he is to presumed to be the exclusive owner of the same and is entitled to use the same exclusively. 3. The aforementioned judgment as relied by the learned counsel was also been referred by the first appellate court and making a distinction, it was found that in Uttam Singh’s case (supra) the tubewell in question had become non-functional and so the defendant was held to be entitled for the same exclusively. However in the present case, both the parties are owners to the extent of equal share and joint cultivation has been reflected in the revenue record. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, one of the co- sharers of the tubewell cannot deprive the right of irrigation to the other co-sharer by unauthorisedly removing the common facility for irrigating the fields as has been held in the case of Mahanga Ram Vs. Gurdial Singh and others, 1997 (2) Civil Court Cases 40 (P&H) and various other authorities as have been referred by the appellate court. 5. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any merit in the present revision petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 6. Pending application, if any shall also stand disposed of. ( DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE March 19, 2025 archana Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No ARCHANA ARORA 2025.03.20 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document