RSA-489-2025 (O&M) 1 of 8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 119 RSA-489-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.04.2026 Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and another ...Appellant(s) Vs. Dayanand through his LRs ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Kewal Krishan, Advocate for Mr. S.K.Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants. *** 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. 2. 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; DIVYANSHI 2026.04.30 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-489-2025 (O&M) 2 of 8 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. 3. 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.” 4. 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. DIVYANSHI 2026.04.30 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-489-2025 (O&M) 3 of 8 5. 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. 6. 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 the tubewell connection is in killa No. 26/4/1/1/6. But as per application of the plaintiff to the defendant for installation of connection in killa No. 48/23 as mentioned in the application and agreement form it is the specific stand DIVYANSHI 2026.04.30 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-489-2025 (O&M) 4 of 8 taken by the defendant that plaintiff has shifted his connection in some other land than that of where it was installed. 7. It is further submitted that the fact that the plaintiff had shifted his connection to some other land, is also proved from the Demarcation Report Mark DA of the land pertaining to connection of plaintiff and some other persons. This document has been proved by Halka Kanungo DW1. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the Courts below failed to appreciate and erred in relying upon the statement of DW2 who in his cross-examination admitted that Ex.PC bears his signature at point A. The rough sketch was prepared as per the report of the JE. Ex.P21 was prepared by department. He further admitted the releasing of connections to the nearby farmers from the tubewell connection/transformer of the plaintiff by considering the same as base. As per Ex.P21, the department has no objection if the tubewell connection keeps on running there only. The courts below failed to appreciate that in the written statement it is pleaded that 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. Therefore only, the electric supply of the said tubewell connection has to be stopped. The tubewell connection was not for killa no.26/14/1/1/6 rather for killa No.48/23. 9. He accordingly prays that the present Appeal be allowed; and the impugned judgments and decrees of the ld. District Courts be set aside. DIVYANSHI 2026.04.30 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-489-2025 (O&M) 5 of 8 10. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellants. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants. 11. It is the primary contention of the appellants that connection to the plaintiff/respondent had been given in Killa No. 48/23; and that the plaintiff has shifted the said connection to Killa No. 26/14/1/1/6. However, the appellants have abjectly failed to prove their said contention. On the other hand, plaintiff has examined PW2 Bijender Singh who has admitted that electricity connection of the plaintiff is still existing on the place where it was originally installed. PW3 Sewa Ram has deposed that his fields are located one killa away from field of plaintiff. PW3 has further stated that plaintiff’s connection is still existing in the same Killa No. where it was originally installed. Learned counsel for the appellants has been unable to dispute or controvert the said evidence led by the plaintiff. 12. To substantiate their case, appellants had relied upon Nishandehi Report Mark DA to prove that plaintiff has shifted the tubewell connection. However, the same has been rightly rejected by the learned District Courts as being not admissible in evidence as it is only a photocopy. Defendants have failed to produce the original Nishandehi Report Mark DA and have not placed the same on record. Mere marking of document would not make it admissible in evidence and does not dispense with its proof. 13. As regards Mark DA, it also needs to be mentioned that DW1 Jagdish Halqa Kanungo had deposed that on 13.05.2016, he had inspected the spot and handed over the Report Mark DA. However, as pointed out DIVYANSHI 2026.04.30 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-489-2025 (O&M) 6 of 8 above, the same is only a photocopy. The original has not been produced for unknown reason. Thus, the said Report Mark DA cannot be taken into consideration. Even otherwise, Mark DA does not, in any manner, show that plaintiff has shifted the tubewell connection from Killa No. 48/23 to Killa No. 26/14/1/1/6. Further DW1 Halqa Kaunungo has admitted that no order was given to him to conduct Nishandehi. DW1 Halqua Kanungo has also categorically admitted that he simply inspected the site and had seen the tubewell in killa no. 26/4/1/1/6 and he did not enquire from either of the party about the matter but only visited the site. 14. DW2 Adarsh Kumar (SDO) has also admitted that connection of the plaintiff was treated as base connection from where connection to nearby field owners has been given. Learned District Courts have therefore correctly observed that if connection of tubewell is wrong, then defendants/department could not have released the connection of the nearby field owners from the said connection. 15. No doubt, appellants have produced Ex.D1 application form; Ex.D2 indemnity Bond; Ex.D3 Jamabandi for the year 2001-2002; and Ex.D4 Aks-shajra. However, all these documents are mere photocopies with endorsement, attested and stamp of the appellant-SDO with signatures of SDO. The originals have not been produced. Even no explanation has been given by the appellant as to why the originals were not produced. Moreover, the said documents have not been proved as per Indian Evidence Act by calling the concerned ofÏcial/witness. The defendants do not even state that the said documents have been attested after comparing with the DIVYANSHI 2026.04.30 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-489-2025 (O&M) 7 of 8 originals. Even no application for secondary evidence was made by the appellants. Therefore, no reliance can be placed upon the documents Ex.D1, Ex.D2, Ex.D3, Ex.D4 produced by the appellants. 16. Last but not the least, the record amply bears out that the tubewell connection was issued in favour of the plaintiff after completion of all formalities. Tubewell connections are sanctioned after fulfilling number of formalities and following established procedure by Department. PW1 Krishan MR, UHBVN, Gohana had proved the documents Ex.P5 to Ex.P32 which are various communications between the plaintiff and the defendants. Ex.P5 is the letter of permission dated 09.07.2008. Ex.P6 is letter No. 4001 dated 04.07.2008, Ex.P6 is the Bill Receipt (E-Challan); Ex.P7, Releasing of AP connection; Ex.P8, Application for checking the line, Ex.P9, Application for depositing amount, Ex.P10, Bill No.843 dated 30.05.2008, Ex.P11, Transformer test certificate, Ex.P12, Bill No.986 dated 15.06.2008, Ex.P13, Transformer test certificate, Ex.P14, Application to deposit 1½ % amount, Ex.P15, Wiring contractor's Test Report, Ex.P16, Application for seeking permission to purchase material, Ex.P17, List of material used Ex.P18, Demand Notice dated 24.11.2006, Ex.P19, Estimate, Ex.P20, Rough sketch for providing Tubewell connection, Ex.P21. All of these documents together go to show that due procedure was followed while allotÝng tubewell connection to the plaintiff. Consequentially, defendants have abjectly failed to prove that the plaintiff had shifted his connection. In fact, PW2 and PW3 have specifically deposed that connection is still existing at the same spot. DIVYANSHI 2026.04.30 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-489-2025 (O&M) 8 of 8 17. Even otherwise, present Second appeal is liable to be dismissed on the short ground that this Court in Regular Second Appeal has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts returned by the learned Courts below. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Shivali Enterprises v. Godawari (Deceased) (SC): Law Finder Doc Id # 2034559 has held that no matter howsoever incorrect or grossly erroneous the concurrent findings of the learned courts below may be, this Court in the Second Appeal can interfere in the concurrent findings only where there is an error in law or procedure. In the present case, no such error in law and procedure has been made out by learned counsel for the appellants. 18. In view of the above noted facts, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts below. The present Regular Second Appeal is hereby dismissed. 19. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 28.04.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.04.30 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document