IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 125 Poonam Pahwa Ravi Pahwa & Another CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 08.04.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura in case bearing CS/01/2024 dated 30.08.2024 titled as “Ravi Pahwa Vs. Seema Bansal & Another” pending for 10.07.2025, whereby application for directing the plaintiff/respondent to re defendant and further not to stop the water supply of the defendant dismissed. 2. the learned trial Court was in patent error in dismissing the application of the petitioner as it is proven respondent/plaintiff are occupying the same premises. It is stated that the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Poonam Pahwa Vs. Ravi Pahwa & Another HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Munish Gulati, Advocate for the petitioner. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside dated 08.04.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura in case bearing CS/01/2024 dated 30.08.2024 titled as “Ravi Pahwa Vs. Seema Bansal & Another” pending for 10.07.2025, whereby application for directing the plaintiff/respondent to re defendant and further not to stop the water supply of the defendant Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the learned trial Court was in patent error in dismissing the application of he petitioner as it is proven on record that the petitioner and the respondent/plaintiff are occupying the same premises. It is stated that the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2888-2025(O&M) Date of decision: 13.05.2025 ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside dated 08.04.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura in case bearing CS/01/2024 dated 30.08.2024 titled as “Ravi Pahwa Vs. Seema Bansal & Another” pending for 10.07.2025, whereby application for directing the plaintiff/respondent to restart the water supply of the defendant and further not to stop the water supply of the defendant, is Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the learned trial Court was in patent error in dismissing the application of on record that the petitioner and the respondent/plaintiff are occupying the same premises. It is stated that the 5 Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside dated 08.04.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura in case bearing CS/01/2024 dated 30.08.2024 titled as “Ravi Pahwa Vs. Seema Bansal & Another” pending for 10.07.2025, whereby application start the water supply of the is Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the learned trial Court was in patent error in dismissing the application of on record that the petitioner and the respondent/plaintiff are occupying the same premises. It is stated that the SUNENA 2025.05.15 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document respondent is occupying one part of the suit premises whereas the petitioner occupies the other. The suit premis connection. However, the respondent has disconnected the water connection of the portion which is occupied by the petitioner. submitted that this is illegal and against the fundamental right of the petitioner. However, the facts. Learned counsel accordingly prays that the impugned order be set aside and direction be issued to the respondent to restart the water supply of the petitioner. 3. 4. perused the case file in great detail. 5. the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein are real brother and sister. The respondent No.1 has filed suit dated 30.08.2024 (Annexure P1) for declaration that he is owner in possession of the house No.2072 on registered Will dated 172 dated 24.08.2011 executed by father of the parties namely restraining the petitioner from dispossessing the plaintiff. The petitioner has filed a respondent in which the plaintiff has suffered a statement respondent is occupying one part of the suit premises whereas the petitioner occupies the other. The suit premis connection. However, the respondent has disconnected the water connection of the portion which is occupied by the petitioner. submitted that this is illegal and against the fundamental right of the petitioner. However, the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate th . Learned counsel accordingly prays that the impugned order be set aside and direction be issued to the respondent to restart the water supply of the petitioner. No other argument is made on beh I have heard learned counsel for the d the case file in great detail. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner and the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein are real brother and sister. The respondent No.1 has filed suit dated 30.08.2024 (Annexure P1) for declaration that he is owner in possession of the house No.2072 on registered Will dated 172 dated 24.08.2011 executed by father of the namely Suresh Kumar; and further for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from dispossessing the plaintiff. The petitioner has filed a counterclaim dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure P2) respondent in which the plaintiff has suffered a statement respondent is occupying one part of the suit premises whereas the petitioner occupies the other. The suit premises is serviced by one water connection. However, the respondent has disconnected the water connection of the portion which is occupied by the petitioner. It is submitted that this is illegal and against the fundamental right of the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate these . Learned counsel accordingly prays that the impugned order be set aside and direction be issued to the respondent to restart the water supply No other argument is made on behalf of the petitioner. learned counsel for the petitioner and A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner and the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein are real brother and sister. The respondent No.1 has filed suit dated 30.08.2024 (Annexure P1) for declaration that he is owner in possession of the house No.2072 on basis of registered Will dated 172 dated 24.08.2011 executed by father of the and further for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from dispossessing the plaintiff. The petitioner 9.2024 (Annexure P2) against the respondent in which the plaintiff has suffered a statement dated 5 respondent is occupying one part of the suit premises whereas the es is serviced by one water connection. However, the respondent has disconnected the water It is submitted that this is illegal and against the fundamental right of the ese . Learned counsel accordingly prays that the impugned order be set aside and direction be issued to the respondent to restart the water supply and A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner and the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein are real brother and sister. The respondent No.1 has filed suit dated 30.08.2024 (Annexure P1) for basis of registered Will dated 172 dated 24.08.2011 executed by father of the and further for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from dispossessing the plaintiff. The petitioner against the dated SUNENA 2025.05.15 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 22.10.2024 (Annexure P4) that he would not raise construction over suit property till decision of application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. 6. the respondent has stopped water supply in the portion of the suit property where she is running a skin and hair clinic. Accordingly, the petitioner had filed the present application dated 24.03.2025 (Annex been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 08.04.2025. 7. the petitioner that the petitioner and the plaintiff occup premises, however, perusal of Petition indicates that address of the petitioner is given as “ near CM School address of respondent Market, Rajpura Town, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.” 8. granted as the same the counterclaim let alone claimed any (Annexure P- petitioner, it was specifically stated therein that 22.10.2024 (Annexure P4) that he would not raise construction over suit property till decision of application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. It is the allegation of the petitioner that on 10.03.2025, the respondent has stopped water supply in the portion of the suit property where she is running a skin and hair clinic. Accordingly, the petitioner had filed the present application dated 24.03.2025 (Annex been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated Although it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and the plaintiff occup premises, however, perusal of the Memo of Parties of the present Revision Petition indicates that address of the petitioner is given as “ near CM School, Rajpura Town, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala address of respondent/plaintiff is given as Market, Rajpura Town, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.” In any event, the prayer granted as the same is beyond the pleadings counterclaim, the petitioner has made no mention of let alone claimed any relief regarding water supply. -6), filed by the respondent to the present application of the petitioner, it was specifically stated therein that 22.10.2024 (Annexure P4) that he would not raise construction over suit property till decision of application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. allegation of the petitioner that on 10.03.2025, the respondent has stopped water supply in the portion of the suit property where she is running a skin and hair clinic. Accordingly, the petitioner had filed the present application dated 24.03.2025 (Annexure P5) which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated Although it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and the plaintiff occupy the same the Memo of Parties of the present Revision Petition indicates that address of the petitioner is given as “House No.1979, , Rajpura Town, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala”; whereas is given as “House No.2072/2, Gandhi Market, Rajpura Town, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.” In any event, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be is beyond the pleadings, and issues in the suit. Even in , the petitioner has made no mention of any water supply; relief regarding water supply. Further, in the reply to the present application of the petitioner, it was specifically stated therein that:- 5 22.10.2024 (Annexure P4) that he would not raise construction over suit allegation of the petitioner that on 10.03.2025, the respondent has stopped water supply in the portion of the suit property where she is running a skin and hair clinic. Accordingly, the petitioner had ure P5) which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated Although it has been contended by learned counsel for the same the Memo of Parties of the present Revision 1979, ”; whereas Gandhi cannot be Even in ; , in the reply to the present application of the SUNENA 2025.05.15 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9. connection number or petitioner either in her application (Annexure P5 petition. All that has been baldly stated is that the respondent has stopped the supply of water of the petitioner. noted above, prayer beyond the regarding supply of water has been sought by the 10. that no water supply is connected observed that ancillary to the main relief available to the party on final determination of his rights in a suit or any other proceeding. Vide, the present application, “3...there was no water supply conn of time from the suit property of plaintiff to the defendants then question of water supply shut/stop by the plaintiff does not arise at all...When water supply is n there was no water supply connected to point of time then question of stop water supply does not arise and question of re-start the water supply of defendants does not arise...when no water supp defendants from the suit property then question of stop water supply or to re-start the water supply does not arise at all...” It is also to be noted that no connection number or bills or any such detail petitioner either in her application (Annexure P5 . All that has been baldly stated is that the respondent has the supply of water of the petitioner. noted above, prayer of the petitioner is beyond the pleadings the counter-claim filed by the petitioner herself. No regarding supply of water has been sought by the Thus, in view of the categoric assertion of the plaintiff that no water supply is connected, learned trial Court has correctly that “...interim relief can only be granted in the aid of and as ancillary to the main relief available to the party on final determination of his rights in a suit or any other proceeding. Vide, the present application, there was no water supply connected/ issued at any point of time from the suit property of plaintiff to the defendants water supply shut/stop by the plaintiff does When water supply is not matter in dispute and there was no water supply connected to defendants at any point of time then question of stop water supply does not arise start the water supply of defendants does not arise...when no water supply ever connected to the defendants from the suit property then question of stop the start the water supply does not arise at It is also to be noted that no details such as the water any such detail have been given by the petitioner either in her application (Annexure P5) or even in the present . All that has been baldly stated is that the respondent has the supply of water of the petitioner. In any event, as already is beyond the pleadings and even filed by the petitioner herself. No relief regarding supply of water has been sought by the petitioner. view of the categoric assertion of the plaintiff earned trial Court has correctly “...interim relief can only be granted in the aid of and as ancillary to the main relief available to the party on final determination of his rights in a suit or any other proceeding. Vide, the present application, 5 ected/ issued at any point of time from the suit property of plaintiff to the defendants water supply shut/stop by the plaintiff does t matter in dispute and defendants at any point of time then question of stop water supply does not arise start the water supply of defendants does ly ever connected to the the start the water supply does not arise at SUNENA 2025.05.15 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the applicants/defendants are s respondent/plaintiff for restarting the water supply which is not at all in issue in the present suit..”. 11. 12. 13.05.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: the applicants/defendants are seeking directions to the respondent/plaintiff for restarting the water supply which is not at all in issue in the present suit..”. In view of the above, present petition is Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No eeking directions to the respondent/plaintiff for restarting the water supply which is not at all in In view of the above, present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 5 SUNENA 2025.05.15 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document