Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 758 (CAL)

Shambhu Nath Das v. Chairman, WBSEDCL

2016-09-28

HARISH TANDON

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. This revisional application is directed against the order no. 13 dated 4th August, 2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Paschim Medinipur in Title Suit No.149 of 2015, by which an application seeking permission to install an electric meter at the premises possessed by the defendant/opposite party no. 3 is allowed. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his title in respect of R. S. Plot Nos. 1557 and 1558 to the extent of 0.130 acres and permanent injunction restraining the defendants to erect electric wire over the suit plot. The application for temporary injunction was filed after the presentation of the plaint and was moved for an ex parte ad interim order. 3. By an order dated 12th May, 2015 the Court passed an ex parte ad interim order of injunction restraining the defendants from erecting electric wire over the plaintiff’s land as described in schedule of the plaint till a particular date. 4. It is not in dispute that the said ad interim order of injunction is being extended from time to time and is still operative. In the meantime an application is taken out by the opposite party no. 3 seeking permission to take electric connection from the Distribution Company to his premises. 5. The attention of this Court is drawn to the averments made in paragraphs 1 and 3 wherefrom it appears that the said opposite party has also claimed right, title and interest in respect of a portion of the aforesaid plots and is residing therein. 6. On the other hand, the petitioner in the written objection says that the said opposite party is trying to install the electric meter forcibly over the plaintiff’s house and the vacant land and, therefore, the Court should not permit such installation. 7. The Trial Court proceeded to allow the said application solely on the ground that a person cannot be deprived of basic and essential amenities, like the electricity. By the impugned order, the Trial Court permitted the opposite party to have installation of the electric meter through the Electricity Company at a place, where the other meters of the premises are installed subject, however, to an undertaking that in the event it is required to be removed, the same would be removed. 8. By the impugned order, the Trial Court permitted the opposite party to have installation of the electric meter through the Electricity Company at a place, where the other meters of the premises are installed subject, however, to an undertaking that in the event it is required to be removed, the same would be removed. 8. The learned advocate for the petitioner is right in his submission that the nature of the order passed by the Court below is directly in conflict with the ex parte ad interim order of injunction. By the ex parte ad interim order the defendants including the opposite party no. 3 were restrained from erecting electric wire over the suit premises. 9. Any permission at this juncture is directly in conflict with the said ad interim order of injunction and the Court ought not to have swayed by the fact that the electricity, being one of the essential basic amenities of life, the person cannot be deprived of such amenities. The Court ought to have been cautious in passing a blanket order of injunction, if the aforesaid consideration was the relevant factor. If the Court have passed a restraint order, it cannot vary or modify the same in exercise of inherent power, when there is a specific provision contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. This Court, therefore, cannot concur with the observations recorded in the impugned order. 11. However, this Court feels that justice would be sub-served, if the application for temporary injunction is disposed of expeditiously. 12. Since the ex parte ad interim order is, in effect, operating against the opposite party no. 3, who is represented before this Court, this Court permits the said opposite party to file written objection to an application for injunction within one week after reopening of the Trial Court following Puja vacation. Reply thereto, if any, shall be filed within four days thereafter. 13. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the application for injunction within two weeks from the date of completion of the affidavits by the respective parties. 14. Reply thereto, if any, shall be filed within four days thereafter. 13. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the application for injunction within two weeks from the date of completion of the affidavits by the respective parties. 14. It is, however, made clear that the consideration at the time of granting ex parte ad interim order of injunction is different than at the time of disposal of an application for temporary injunction and, therefore, the Trial Court shall not be swayed by the fact that this Court has not interfered with the ex parte ad interim order of injunction. 15. For abundant precaution it is once again reiterated that the Trial Court shall decide the said application independent of any observations recorded hereinabove. 16. The portion of the impugned order, by which an application filed by the opposite party no. 3 was allowed, is hereby set aside. The remaining portion is uninterfered with. 17. This revisional application is thus allowed in part. 18. There will be no order as to costs.