CWP-8064- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (120) Jagjit Singh Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and other CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. the Constitution of India of certiorari, seeking quashing of interim order dated 21.01.2025 (Annexure P Permanent Lok Adalat concerned, while entertaining the application filed under Section 22(c) respondent No.2, electricity connection the requirements, within 10 days from the date of passing of the order. 2. the order (supra), on the ground that property, and has already filed a civil suit Court concerned, has granted the inte -2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Jagjit Singh Versus Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(ORAL) Through the instant writ petition, cast under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a prayer is made for of certiorari, seeking quashing of interim order dated 21.01.2025 (Annexure P-5), passed by the respondent No.3, whereby Permanent Lok Adalat concerned, while entertaining the application filed under Section 22(c) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, respondent No.2, had directed the distribution licencee electricity connection to the premises of the respondent No.2, upon fulfilling the requirements, within 10 days from the date of passing of the order. The petitioner has approached this Court, fetching grievance from the order (supra), on the ground that the petitioner is a co property, and has already filed a civil suit Court concerned, has granted the interim injunction in favour of the petitioner, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-8064-2025 Date of Decision : 24.03.2025 …Petitioner Versus ...Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI petition, cast under Articles 226/227 of , a prayer is made for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, seeking quashing of interim order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the respondent No.3, whereby, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat concerned, while entertaining the application filed Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, filed by the directed the distribution licencee, to release the the premises of the respondent No.2, upon fulfilling the requirements, within 10 days from the date of passing of the order. The petitioner has approached this Court, fetching grievance from the petitioner is a co-sharer in the property, and has already filed a civil suit, wherethrough, the learned Civil rim injunction in favour of the petitioner, petition, cast under Articles 226/227 of issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, seeking quashing of interim order dated 21.01.2025 learned Permanent Lok Adalat concerned, while entertaining the application filed the to release the the premises of the respondent No.2, upon fulfilling The petitioner has approached this Court, fetching grievance from sharer in the learned Civil rim injunction in favour of the petitioner, MANPREET SINGH 2025.03.28 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-8064- and despite that, the order (supra) application for implea has not been entertained and th 3. counsel for the petitioner. 4. 22.11.2024, granted in favour of the present petitioner, by the learned Civil Court concerned. However, this Court does not find the same to be lending any vigour to the submissions, as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Civil Court concerned, at the time to granting the interim injunction, has granted the liberty to construct only to the extent of their share in the suit property, and the construction was made subject to the final outcome of the partition proceedings. The relevant part of the order (supra), is extracted hereinafter : 5. -2025 and despite that, the order (supra), has been passed. application for impleadment, by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat concerned, has not been entertained and the impugned order has be This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court has examined the interim injunction 22.11.2024, granted in favour of the present petitioner, by the learned Civil cerned. However, this Court does not find the same to be lending any vigour to the submissions, as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Civil Court concerned, at the time to granting the interim injunction, has granted the liberty to construct only to the extent of their share in the suit property, and the construction was made subject to the final outcome of the partition proceedings. The relevant part of the order (supra), is extracted hereinafter : “14. Accordingly, ad- favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants restraining the defendants, from raising any construction or changing the nature of the property in question till the disposal of the suit. However, it is defendants are entitled to construct only to the extent of their share in the suit property which would, of course, be subject to final outcome of the partition proceedings. 15. Ergo, the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 the Civil Procedure Code stands allowed and for the sake of clarity it is relevant to state here that any observations made herein are only for the purposes of the present application and would not have any bearing on the final outcome of the suit or me on 22.01.2025 for framing the issues.” In the instant case, if the petitioner/ has been passed. He further submits that his ment, by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat concerned, e impugned order has been passed. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned This Court has examined the interim injunction order dated 22.11.2024, granted in favour of the present petitioner, by the learned Civil cerned. However, this Court does not find the same to be lending any vigour to the submissions, as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Civil Court concerned, at the time to granting the interim injunction, has granted the liberty to the defendants therein, to construct only to the extent of their share in the suit property, and the construction was made subject to the final outcome of the partition proceedings. The relevant part of the order (supra), is extracted hereinafter :- -interim injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants restraining the defendants, from raising any construction or changing the nature of the property in question till the disposal of the suit. However, it is hereby clarified that the defendants are entitled to construct only to the extent of their share in the suit property which would, of course, be subject to final outcome of the partition proceedings. 15. Ergo, the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 the Civil Procedure Code stands allowed and for the sake of clarity it is relevant to state here that any observations made herein are only for the purposes of the present application and would not have any bearing on the final outcome of the suit or merits of the suit. Now to come up on 22.01.2025 for framing the issues.” if the petitioner/respondents have raised He further submits that his ment, by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat concerned, This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned order dated 22.11.2024, granted in favour of the present petitioner, by the learned Civil cerned. However, this Court does not find the same to be lending any vigour to the submissions, as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Civil Court concerned, at the time to granting the the defendants therein, to construct only to the extent of their share in the suit property, and the construction was made subject to the final outcome of the partition - interim injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants restraining the defendants, from raising any construction or changing the nature of the property in question till the hereby clarified that the defendants are entitled to construct only to the extent of their share in the suit property which would, of course, be 15. Ergo, the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code stands allowed and for the sake of clarity it is relevant to state here that any observations made herein are only for the purposes of the present application and would not have any bearing on the final rits of the suit. Now to come up raised MANPREET SINGH 2025.03.28 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-8064- construction, t for the electricity connection. is unable to point out from the record that the suit property, beyond their share. S adjudication, before the learned Permanent Lok Adalat concer this Court, entitlement of the respondent No.2, to have new electricity connection, as the same is yet to be 6. miscellaneous concerned, has not been entertained, therefor learned Permanent Lok Adalat concerned, to application. 7. learned counsel for the petitioner, and therefore, disposed of concerned, to entertain the miscellaneous a petitioner, and to adjudicate the same within the ambit of law. 8. perversity or illegality in the order, requiring any interference, therefore, the impugned order is hereby ordered to be maintained. 9. March 24, 2025 Manpreet -2025 construction, to the extent of their own share, then for the electricity connection. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out from the record that the respondents have constructed in the suit property, beyond their share. S adjudication, before the learned Permanent Lok Adalat concer refrains itself from making any observation with regard to the entitlement of the respondent No.2, to have new electricity connection, as the to be finally adjudicated. The second grievance raised by the petitio miscellaneous application, preferred before the learned has not been entertained, therefor learned Permanent Lok Adalat concerned, to This Court finds merit in the second prayer, as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and therefore, disposed of, with a direction upon the learned Permanent Lok Adalat concerned, to entertain the miscellaneous a and to adjudicate the same within the ambit of law. However, considering the fact that this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the order, requiring any interference, therefore, the d order is hereby ordered to be maintained. Ordered accordingly. 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable o the extent of their own share, then naturally, they are entitled this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner the respondents have constructed in the suit property, beyond their share. Since the dispute is pending adjudication, before the learned Permanent Lok Adalat concerned, therefore, refrains itself from making any observation with regard to the entitlement of the respondent No.2, to have new electricity connection, as the The second grievance raised by the petitioner is that his before the learned Permanent Lok Adalat has not been entertained, therefore, a direction be passed upon the learned Permanent Lok Adalat concerned, to entertain the miscellaneous This Court finds merit in the second prayer, as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and therefore, the instant writ petition is , with a direction upon the learned Permanent Lok Adalat concerned, to entertain the miscellaneous application, so preferred by the and to adjudicate the same within the ambit of law. However, considering the fact that this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the order, requiring any interference, therefore, the d order is hereby ordered to be maintained. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No they are entitled this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner the respondents have constructed in ince the dispute is pending ned, therefore, refrains itself from making any observation with regard to the entitlement of the respondent No.2, to have new electricity connection, as the ner is that his Permanent Lok Adalat be passed upon the miscellaneous This Court finds merit in the second prayer, as made by the the instant writ petition is , with a direction upon the learned Permanent Lok Adalat so preferred by the However, considering the fact that this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the order, requiring any interference, therefore, the MANPREET SINGH 2025.03.28 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment