Judgment :- Animadverting upon the order dated 16.09.2008 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi in I.A.No.343 of 2008 in O.S.No.436 of 2007., this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite printing the name of the respondents, they have not appeared either in person or through their Advocate. 3. A summarization and summation of the facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: The revision petitioner/plaintiff herein filed the suit O.S.No.271 of 2004 seeking the following relief: Tamil as against the Electricity Board and its officials. While so, I.A.No.343 of 2008 was filed by the wife, so as to implead herself as the defendant in the suit. The lower Court allowed it. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision is focussed on various grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff, placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would put forth his submission to the effect that the proposed party, viz., the wife of the revision petitioner, who is admittedly not in good terms with him, is trying to stall the proceedings and put the plaintiff in difficulties. He would also cite a decision of this Court reported in (2008) 1 MLJ 335 (Yasodha and another vs. Prabbakaran and others) and develop his argument that as per the view of this Court in the cited decision, the parties who are not necessary for adjudication should not be added. 5. A bare perusal of the cited decision would reveal that the facts involved in the cited decision were relating to a petrol bunk and in that connection, the suit was filed; however, the neighbour wanted to get himself impleaded and in those circumstances, the Court held that the neighbour was not a necessary party. 6. Here, indubitably and unassailably, the Electricity Board sent a communication to the plaintiff about the proposal to disconnect the existing electricity supply, consequent upon the objection raised by the plaintiffs wife viz., the proposed party. Hence, in such a case, considering the said fact alone, the lower court thought it fit to add her as a party. 7. 6. Here, indubitably and unassailably, the Electricity Board sent a communication to the plaintiff about the proposal to disconnect the existing electricity supply, consequent upon the objection raised by the plaintiffs wife viz., the proposed party. Hence, in such a case, considering the said fact alone, the lower court thought it fit to add her as a party. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that if the wife is allowed to be added as one of the defendants, she would convert the suit for bare injunction into one of title , which is beyond the scope of the suit itself and consequently, the plaintiff would not be able to get any remedy before the Court. 8. At this juncture, my mind is reminiscent and redolent of the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Code, which in unmistakable terms points out that the occupier of the premises can seek for electricity supply and the same could be given irrespective of the title dispute. When such is the well settled legal position, the lower Court I believe will not go into the full details relating to the title dispute as to whether the plaintiff or his wife is the real owner of the property. As such, with this observation, I am of the opinion that the revision should be dismissed as no prejudice would be caused, in view of the observation made by this Court in this revision. 9. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would also make an extempore submission that a direction may be given for speedy disposal of the suit. Considering the nature of the case, the lower court shall do well to see that within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the suit is disposed of on merits.