Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 5338 (MAD)

Devaneedhi v. N. Chandran & Another

2010-12-03

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 24.9.2009, passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Poonamallee, in I.A.No.202 of 2009, in O.S.No.325 of 2007. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, in the year, 2003, the petitioner had got the electricity service connection to the suit property and had let out the premises for rent to TASMAC. The first respondent had applied for a second electricity service connection to the suit property, with forged and created documents. Even though the petitioner had raised objections before the third respondent, the second electricity service connection had been given to the first respondent. 3. It has also been stated that the impugned order, dated 24.9.2009, passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court-I), is a non-speaking order. It does not give any reason as to why the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.202 of 2009, had been dismissed. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present civil revision petition before this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted that the petitioner has no right to demand the disconnection of the electricity service connection, as prayed for, in I.A.No.202 of 2009. The said interlocutory application had been filed by the petitioner, belatedly, after a period of two years from the filing of the suit, in O.S.No.325 of 2007. Since, the suit is posted for trial, the relief sought for by the petitioner ought not to be granted by this Court. He had also submitted that the proceedings in the suit has been stalled due to the pendency of the civil revision petition. 5. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for in the present civil revision petition. The interlocutory application, in I.A.No.202 of 2009, having been filed, belatedly, in the year, 2009, in the suit, in O.S.No.325 of 2007, and as the Additional District Judge, Fast Tract Court-I, Poonamallee, had found no merits in the said application, it had been dismissed, by his order, dated 24.9.2009. The interlocutory application, in I.A.No.202 of 2009, having been filed, belatedly, in the year, 2009, in the suit, in O.S.No.325 of 2007, and as the Additional District Judge, Fast Tract Court-I, Poonamallee, had found no merits in the said application, it had been dismissed, by his order, dated 24.9.2009. As it is not in dispute that the suit, in O.S.No.325 of 2007, is listed for trial, the Additional District Judge, Fast Tract Court-I, Poonamallee, is directed to dispose of the suit, in O.S.No.325 of 2007, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The civil revision petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.