IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 122 CR-4130-2025 Date of decision: 19.08.2025 AVTAR SINGH .... PETITIONER VERSUS SR. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND OTHERS ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. H.K. Brinda, Advocate for the petitioner. **** PARMOD GOYAL , J. (Oral) 1. Petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved by the order dated 29.05.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar vide which application under Section 151 CPC moved by the petitioner-plaintiff during pendency of the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2024 for restoration of the tubewell motor electric connection installed in Khasra No.429 in the area of village Manak Majra, Tehsil, District Rupangar in the name of his father Gurbax Singh (since deceased) was dismissed. 2. The petitioner had filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant-respondent by asserting that the father of the petitioner-plaintiff, Gurbax Singh, had applied for the electric tubewell motor connection which was released in his favour on 30.05.2006. 3. It is a case of plaintiff-petitioner that he and his brothers are absolute owners and are in joint possession of land after the death of their KUSUM 2025.08.26 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CR-4130-2025 2 father and they have been using the said electric tubewell motor connection without any interruption, but respondent No.1 passed Order No.4400 dated 31.05.2018 (Annexure P-1) to disconnect the tubewell electric connection and the same was challenged before the concerned Court by the petitioner- plaintiff. The said suit preferred by the petitioner-plaintiff was dismissed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Rupnagar vide order dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure P-2). However, before expiry of the period of limitation for filing appeal, the tubewell connection was disconnected and after filing of appeal, plaintiff-appellant moved an application for restoration of said connection which was disconnected after dismissal of suit. The said application of plaintiff-petitioner has not found favour with the Appellate Court and the same was dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.05.2025 (Annexure P-4), which is under challenge by way of present revision petition before this Court. 4. The case of defendants on the other side is that the tubewell connection was obtained by Gurbax Singh by producing forged and fabricated documents, and when it was found that tubewell connection was taken by Gurbax Singh on the basis of forgery, a criminal complaint was duly filed against him. He was put to trial for said forgery and was duly convicted for committing fraud as he had got tubewell connection released in his favour on the basis of affidavit allegedly sworn by one Bhagwan Kaur on 10.03.2006, whereas said Bhagwan Kaur had expired on 25.02.2006. The learned trial court convicted Gurbax Singh, and upon his appeal, the Appellate Court partly modified the judgment as regards to some of the offences and quantum of sentence. KUSUM 2025.08.26 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CR-4130-2025 3 5. It is the case of defendants that although sentence of Gurbax Singh was reduced, he was acquitted for offences under Sections 467 and 468 IPC, however, he was convicted and sentenced under Sections 471 and 120-B IPC. After conviction of Gurbax Singh, defendants issued him a notice asking why the tubewell connection, which had been obtained on the basis of forged documents, should not be cancelled. Gurbax Singh duly filed his reply and after considering the same, order dated 31.05.2018 (Annexure P-1) was passed by the defendants. After due consideration of respective contentions and the evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court found no merit in the case advanced by present petitioner-plaintiff and accordingly dismissed the suit. After dismissal of the suit, the tubewell connection was disconnected. 6. Now, the petitioner is seeking re-connection of the electricity supply which has been disconnected in pursuance of legal order. It is pertinent to note that the said order has not been set aside or modified by any competent Court. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no ground for interference is made out. The petitioner has not been found entitled to continue with the electricity connection, which was duly withdrawn after affording him an opportunity of hearing and serving proper notice. 8. The appeal filed by the petitioner-plaintiff is presently pending adjudication before the Appellate Court. At this stage, since the order dated 31.05.2018 (Annexure P-4), continues to remain in force, no interim relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. The only remedy available to the petitioner-plaintiff is to seek restoration of the tubewell KUSUM 2025.08.26 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CR-4130-2025 4 connection before the Appellate Court, if he succeeds in the pending appeal. 9. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same, is hereby, dismissed. However, the petitioner-plaintiff shall be entitled to seek restoration, in case his appeal is allowed by the learned Appellate Court. 10. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (PARMOD GOYAL) 19.08.2025 JUDGE Kusum Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No KUSUM 2025.08.26 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh