Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Others vs Manikat Sharma and Another

Mohammad Rafiq, J.—Heard learned counsel for appellants and perused the material on record. Plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction with prayer that defendant-appellants may be restrained from raising high-tension line over their property marked as ABCD in the enclosed map. Defendant-appellants contested the suit by filing written statement. Learned Court below framed as many as three issues. Both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence. After considering all the material on record, learned Court below decided all the three issues in favour of plaintiff-respondents and against defendant-appellants. Issue no.1 was to the effect whether defendants have right to erect H.T. Line over the land marked ABCD shown in the map annexed with the plaint and plaintiffs are entitled to restrain the defendants by way of permanent injunction. Learned Court below, while deciding the said issue, has dealt with the documentary as well as oral evidence. DW-1 Gordhan Lal, in his statement, stated that a tower was installed over the land of way, which is three feet away in the north of the land marked ABCD in the enclosed map, and electricity wires have been erected. In cross-examination, this witness has stated the electricity line to be of 33000 K.V. and further admitted that by way of erection of electricity line the electricity power will be supplied. He also admitted danger on account of such H.T. Line if installed there. He admitted that the poles are three feet away of the disputed land in its north side. Learned first appellate Court has recorded that in view of the Notification dt. 17.03.2004 of the Government of Rajasthan and as per the Rules of the Central Government, there should be horizontal clarity of two meter for 33000 K.V. line and it should be 3.7 meters in vertical. As per admission of the defendants'' own witness, it is only three feet distance and as per the Rules it should be two meter which comes about 6 1/2 feet.

In the light of submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants, I examined the matter and I find that the appeal has arisen out of a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs for restraining the defendants from raising 33000 K.V. line, which has been decreed by both the Courts below and, after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, I find that all the issues framed in present case are relating to question of fact and both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact, which cannot be interfered with by this Court in second appeal under Sec. 100, CPC. No question of law much less any substantial question is involved in this appeal and same is liable to be dismissed.

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Consequent upon dismissal of appeal itself, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and same is also dismissed.