IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 154 CR-4670-2026 Date of decision: 23.07.2026 Tulsi Devi . . . . Petitioner Vs. Vidya Rani and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr. Deepesh Kakkar and Ms. Kush Kakkar, Advocates, for the petitioner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The petitioner-plaintiff has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 06.05.2026 (Annexure P-1), whereby the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal dismissed her application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking restoration of the electricity connection in the suit property. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner instituted Civil Suit No. CS-476-2026 seeking a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction on the plea that she is a tenant under defendant No.1 in respect of the suit property. It is alleged that defendant No.1 has subsequently alienated the property in favour of the other defendants, who, in collusion with each other, are attempting to dispossess the petitioner otherwise than in due course of law and also intended to disconnect the electricity supply to the premises. 3. Along with the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking interim protection against her alleged dispossession and interference with her possession. The said application was VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.24 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4670-2026 2026:PHHC:101986 dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 16.05.2026 (Annexure P- 15). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the aforesaid order has already been challenged by way of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.81 of 2026 before the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, which is presently pending adjudication. 5. It is contended that during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, the respondents disconnected the electricity connection of the suit premises. Consequently, the petitioner moved an application under Section 151 CPC before the learned trial Court seeking restoration of electricity supply. The said application has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 06.05.2026, which has led to the filing of the present petition. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon consideration of the record, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out for interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Admittedly, the order refusing interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC is already under challenge before the learned First Appellate Court. The relief now claimed by the petitioner, namely restoration of electricity supply, is essentially in the nature of an interim mandatory injunction intended to preserve the petitioner's alleged right of user and enjoyment of the suit premises during the pendency of the suit. Such relief is intrinsically connected with the subject matter of the pending appeal. 8. It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction preserved under Section 151 CPC cannot ordinarily be invoked to grant a relief, which is substantially governed by the express provisions of the Code. Equally, where the statutory appellate forum is already seized of the question relating to interim protection between the parties, parallel adjudication by the trial Court or by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 is neither warranted nor conducive to orderly administration of justice. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.24 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4670-2026 2026:PHHC:101986 9. The powers of the first Appellate Court are co-extensive with those of the trial Court in matters relating to grant or refusal of interim relief. Once the appeal against the order declining temporary injunction is pending, the Appellate Court is fully competent to take note of subsequent events, including the alleged disconnection of electricity during the pendency of the proceedings, and, if the facts and circumstances so justify, to mould the interim relief by issuing appropriate directions, including an interim mandatory order, for protecting the subject matter of the litigation. 10. Permitting simultaneous proceedings before different fora in respect of substantially the same interim relief would not only lead to multiplicity of proceedings but may also result in inconsistent or conflicting orders. Judicial discipline, therefore, requires that all issues relating to interim protection between the parties be considered by the Appellate Court, which is already in seisin of the matter. 11. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the learned First Appellate Court in the pending Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, placing on record the subsequent event regarding the alleged disconnection of electricity and seeking such interim or mandatory relief as may be permissible in law. In case any such application is filed, the learned Appellate Court shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law, on its own merits and uninfluenced by any observation contained in the present order. 12. Consequently, finding no ground to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the present revision petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 23.07.2026 JUDGE Vivek Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.24 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document