ORDER Re. Interlocutory Application No. 2762 of 2012. 2. The delay of 9 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. 3. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 554 of 2012. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 8th February, 2012 made by the learned single Judge in Civil Review No. 406 of 2011, the respondent no. 10 has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 5. The respondent no. 10, the writ petitioner in CWJC No. 10126 of 2011, filed the said writ petition against the Bihar State Electricity Board and its officers for giving her electric connection in the residential house occupied by her. The writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge on 14th September, 2011. The respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board conceded to give provisional connection to the writ petitioner subject to the result of the Title Suit pending before the Civil Court. 6. It appears that the appellant-writ petitioner claims to be the owner of the disputed property by devolution; whereas the respondent-review petitioner claims to be the owner of the property under the registered sale deed allegedly executed by one Ranjeet Sao, father of the appellant. The respondent no. 10 filed Civil Review No. 406 of 2011 against the above-referred order dated 14th September, 2011 on the grounds that she was the owner of the property; she was not heard in the writ petition and that she had objected to the electrical connection being given to the appellant as that would frustrate the Eviction Suit filed by the review petitioner against the appellant. On her representation, the learned single Judge has allowed the review petition and remitted the matter to the respondent authorities to decide afresh the question of granting electrical connection to the appellant. Therefore, this Appeal. 7. The apprehension raised by the review petitioner that her right of ownership over the disputed property would be seriously prejudiced if new electrical connection is given to the appellant and that her Eviction Suit would be defeated is misconceived. Supply of electrical connection does not confer right of ownership or right to possession to any party. Nor is the Bihar State Electricity Board empowered to decide the issues of title or ownership. The grounds on which the review petitioner sought to review the earlier order dated 14th September, 2011 were non-existent. No review was necessary. 8. Supply of electrical connection does not confer right of ownership or right to possession to any party. Nor is the Bihar State Electricity Board empowered to decide the issues of title or ownership. The grounds on which the review petitioner sought to review the earlier order dated 14th September, 2011 were non-existent. No review was necessary. 8. For the aforesaid reason, the Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 8th February, 2012 made by the learned single Judge in Civil Review No. 406 of 2011 is set-aside. The Civil Review no. 406 of 2011 is rejected. The order dated 14th September, 2011 made by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 10126 of 2011 is restored.