Kulbhushan Rai Jain v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited And Others

VINOD KUMAR 2015.01.16 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR No.214 of 2015 [ 1 ] ****

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CR No.214 of 2015 Date of decision:12.01.2015 Kulbhushan Rai Jain

...Petitioner

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others ...Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Mr. K.S.Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.11.2014 by which his application filed under Order 8 Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for directing defendants no.1 to 3 to produce the estimate prepared for the improvement of electricity supply in Main Bazar, Faridkot along with sketch prepared at the time of preparing the estimate, has been dismissed.

In brief, the plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from installing and erecting electricity pole in front of his shop, namely, Mahavir Emporium (Bhushan Cloth House) bearing M.C. No.B-VIII/86 & B-VIII/87 in the Main Bazar at Faridkot. The trial Court, while dismissing the application, has observed that the estimate for improvement of electricity supply in the Main Bazar

VINOD KUMAR 2015.01.16 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR No.214 of 2015 [ 2 ] **** has nothing to do with the plaintiff because the suit filed by the plaintiff is only to the extent of pole to be installed by the defendants in front of his shop. It is also observed that the said record of estimate/public document can always be summoned by the plaintiff-petitioner at the time of evidence and accordingly the application was rejected. Although counsel for the petitioner has argued vehemently that he should know about the estimate but has failed to point out as to what purpose it would serve as the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner is only for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from installing the electric pole in front of his shop.

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed. January 12, 2015 ( Rakesh Kumar Jain ) vinod* Judge