2010 PLP 434 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Petitioner Versus ZAKA-ULLAH and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 434 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Petitioner Versus ZAKA-ULLAH and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 434 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 434 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 434 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Petitioner Versus ZAKA-ULLAH and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jahangir A. Jhoja for Petitioner.
- Awais Tauseef for Respondent No.1.
Headnotes / Summary
S.54
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1, 2 &, S.115
Electricity Act (IX of 1910), Ss.51 & 68
Telegraph Act (XIII of 1885), S.10
Application for grant of temporary injunction
Defendant for the purpose of electricity connection to his tube-well wanted the aerial line through the properly of the plaintiff
Plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction and application for grant of temporary injunction, had concurrently been disallowed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court
If electricity connection could be had by the defendant directly to his property from the transformer by utilizing about 50 feet of the plaintiff's property, defendant could not insist that as he would save expenses,. if the line was stretched from the property in question and in circumstances was legally entitled to have the connection therefrom, was not legally tenable
Such aspect of the matter had not been taken into account by the courts below
Impugned orders were set aside, in circumstances however, if defendant wanted the connection, he could only use the property of the plaintiff to bear minimum damage, which was absolutely necessary and required for that purpose, otherwise, notwithstanding as to whatever amount of expenses he could have to bear, he must have the line through his own properly.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
The respondent for the purpose of electricity connection to his tube-well wants the aerial line through the property of the petitioner, thus the petitioner filed a suit for the permanent injunction, along with which an application for the grant of temporary injunction was also moved, which was disallowed by the learned trial Court vide order, dated 28-7-2009; the appeal of the petitioner has also failed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the provisions of section 51 of the Electricity Act, 1910 read with section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 and Rule 68 of the Electricity Act, 1910 concedes that in order to provide the electricity connection, the aerial line can be stretched from the property of the petitioner, however, he has argued that as per section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act, 1885, little possible damage and utilization of the property must be caused/made. It is thus submitted that the land of respondent No.1 is at a distance of 50 feet from the transformer and therefore, the line should be stretched straight to his land and accordingly to the tube-well, rather first fixing a pole in the middle of the petitioner's land and then to the connection point.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent states that as per the law mentioned above, the property of the petitioner can always be utilized; besides, the petitioner is not the owner of the property.
4. Heard. As regard the question of utilization of the petitioner's property is concerned, law is very clear. However at the same time, if the connection can be had by respondent No.1 directly to his property from the transformer by utilizing about 50 feet of the petitioner's property and/or which is in his occupation in whatever capacity, the respondent No.1 cannot insist that as he shall save some expenses if the line is stretched from the property in question and therefore, is legally entitled to have the connection therefrom' is not legally tenable. This aspect of the matter has not been taken into account by the Courts below resultantly, the impugned orders are set aside. Anyhow, it is held that if respondent No.1 wants the connection, he can only use the property of the petitioner to bear minimum damage, which is absolutely necessary and required for that purpose, otherwise notwithstanding as to whatever amount of expenses he may have to bear, he must have the line through his own property. This petition is accordingly allowed. H.B.T./M-822/L Petition dismissed.