JUDGMENT : VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ex. Appl. (OS) 420/2017 in Ex.P. 146/2016 1. By this order the objections filed by judgment debtor under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) are being disposed of. The execution petition is filed by the plaintiffs/decree holders, and who are the legal heirs of the original plaintiff/decree holder Smt. Gurnam Kaur, seeking execution of the judgment dated 14.7.2016 passed in CS (OS) No. 2691/2015. The judgment dated 14.7.2016 which is sought to be executed reads as under:- “1. The plaintiff has sued for mandatory injunction directing the defendants BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) and Divisional Head (O&M) of the defendant No.1 BSES Rajdhani Power Limited to remove the transformer and the electric pole installed in the portion of the properties No. D1/20 and D1/21, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi of the plaintiff and for recovery of arrears and future mesne profits/damages for the use and occupation. 2. The suit was entertained. 3. The defendants No. 1 and 3 have filed a written statement inter alia pleading that the subject transformer has been in existence for over 30 years, though the said defendants are unable to locate the documents executed by the then owner of the property permitting installation of the said transformer and have sought the same from Delhi Power Corporation Limited (DPCL) being the holding company created while unbundling erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) during whose regime the subject transformer and electric pole were installed. 4. Defendant No.2 SDMC has not filed any written statement and the counsel for the plaintiff states that the defendant No.2 SDMC was impleaded only because it was the stand of the defendant No.1 in response to the legal notice preceding the suit that SDMC had to allocate alternative place to them for shifting of the said transformer; else no relief has been claimed against the defendant No.2 SDMC. 5. The suit is ripe for framing of issues, if any. 6. Counsel for the plaintiff states that the written statement of defendants No. 1 and 3 does not disclose any defence to the suit in so far as for the relief of mandatory injunction and the plaintiff is entitled to decree forthwith. 7. 5. The suit is ripe for framing of issues, if any. 6. Counsel for the plaintiff states that the written statement of defendants No. 1 and 3 does not disclose any defence to the suit in so far as for the relief of mandatory injunction and the plaintiff is entitled to decree forthwith. 7. On enquiry, the counsel for the plaintiff in support of the title of the plaintiff to the subject property has drawn attention to the judgment dated 10th April, 2015 of this Court in CS(OS) No.1350/1995 titled Gurnam Kaur Vs. Pritam Singh Bhatia and in Test.Cas. 81/2008 titled Administrator General Sanjay Dewan Vs. State declaring the plaintiff as the owner of the properties and to the judgment dated 14th August, 2015 of the Division Bench of this Court in RFA(OS)70/2015 Sanjeev Bansal Vs Gurnam Kaur preferred thereagainst. It is further informed that SLP preferred against the said judgment of the Division Bench was also dismissed though copy of that order has not been filed and is not available with the counsel today. On further inquiry whether there is any challenge from any quarter to the title of the plaintiff to the subject properties as of today, the reply is in the negative. It is however informed that the plaintiff has since sold property No.D-1/21, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi but the transformer and the electricity pole qua which the suit has been filed is in property No.D-1/20. 8. The counsel for the defendants No. 1 and 3 on inquiry confirms that the transformer and the electricity pole are as shown in the site plan filed by the plaintiff i.e. within the boundary wall of property No.D-1/20. The said site plan, for identification, is Ex.C-1. 9. The counsel for the defendants No. 1 and 3 states that the defendants No. 1 and 3 have sought details of the documents of occupation of the property from the DPCL and the same are awaited and seeks adjournment. It is argued that owing to the process of unbundling of the DVB which had installed the subject transformer, the documents are not immediately available. It is yet further contended that the removal of transformer is a time consuming process and subject to availability of alternative location and if the transformer is removed immediately, the electric supply to the locality would suffer. 10. I have considered the rival contentions. It is yet further contended that the removal of transformer is a time consuming process and subject to availability of alternative location and if the transformer is removed immediately, the electric supply to the locality would suffer. 10. I have considered the rival contentions. Merit is found in the contention of the counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff, on the pleadings of the parties, is entitled to a decree forthwith for the relief of mandatory injunction. 11. Order XV of the CPC requires the Court to frame issues only substantial disputed questions of law and the written statement of the defendants No. 1 and 3 does not raise any substantial question of fact which if proved would disentitle the plaintiff to the relief of mandatory injunction. 12. As far as the pleas of the counsel for the defendants No. 1 and 3 of adjournment and of difficulty in removal of transformer are concerned, suffice it is to state that the written statement was filed by the defendants No. 1 and 3 as far back as in January, 2016 and if the defendants No. 1 and 3 in the last about six months have been unable to find any document, the suit cannot be kept pending indefinitely for the said purpose and the plaintiff cannot be deprived of her property. The question of the difficulty in shifting of the transformer even otherwise is to be considered at the stage of execution of the decree for mandatory injunction. 13. I may in this regard notice that with respect to transformers similarly installed in other private properties, WP(C)s. No. 6032/2008 and 1035/2011 were filed and the directions for shifting of the transformers to the alternative site issued. 14. I have in this regard enquired from the counsel for the defendants No. 1 and 3 whether defendants No. 1 and 3 have initiated the process for shifting of the transformer and the electricity pole. 15. The reply is in the negative. 16. The same is also indicative of the fact that till an order is passed, the defendants No. 1 and 3 will not be spurred into action for relocating the transformer. 17. The plaintiff, from certified copies of judgments supra of this Court has proved her ownership of the property. The defendants No. 1 and 3 have not claimed any ownership right in the property. 17. The plaintiff, from certified copies of judgments supra of this Court has proved her ownership of the property. The defendants No. 1 and 3 have not claimed any ownership right in the property. The only possible right of the defendants No. 1 and 3 could be either of a licencee or as a lessee. It is not the case that there is any registered lease. For this reason also, the question of the defendants No. 1 and 3 having any right to continue with the transformer and electrical pole in the property of the plaintiff does not arise. 18. The suit insofar as for the relief of mandatory injunction is accordingly decreed and a decree for mandatory injunction is passed, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No.1 directing the defendant No.1 to remove the transformer and the electricity pole in property No.D-1/20, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi within three months from today. 19. Decree sheet be drawn up. 20. As far as the claim of the plaintiff for recovery of damages/mesne profit is concerned, the plaintiff has claimed the arrears of damages of Rs.23,32,000/- and future damages/mesne profits. 21. The counsel for the plaintiff on enquiry states that the plaintiff, for the first time called upon the defendants No. 1 and 3 to remove the transformer and electricity pole, on 15th April, 2015. 22. The claim for mesne profits/damages for use and occupation can be thereafter only say w.e.f. 1st May, 2015. 23. On the pleadings of the parties with respect to the said claim of the plaintiff, the following issues are framed: 1. To damages/mesne profits with effect from 1st May, 2015 at what rate, is the plaintiff entitled to from the defendant No.1 for not removing the transformer and electricity pole from Property No.D-1/20 Rajouri Garden, New Delhi of the plaintiff? OPP 2. Relief. 24. No other issue arise or is pressed. 25. The Parties to file their list of witnesses within 15 days. 26. The plaintiff to file affidavits by way of examination in chief of all her witnesses within eight weeks. 27. List before the Joint Registrar on 22nd September, 2016 for fixing dates of trial. IA.No.18536/2015 (u/O 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC) & IA.No.7105/2016 (U.O 11 Rule 1 CPC) 28. Dismissed as not pressed.” (emphasis added) 2. 26. The plaintiff to file affidavits by way of examination in chief of all her witnesses within eight weeks. 27. List before the Joint Registrar on 22nd September, 2016 for fixing dates of trial. IA.No.18536/2015 (u/O 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC) & IA.No.7105/2016 (U.O 11 Rule 1 CPC) 28. Dismissed as not pressed.” (emphasis added) 2. The aforesaid judgment was passed in a suit filed by the plaintiff/decree holder for directions to the judgment debtor no.1 to remove the transformer and electricity poll situated in the plaintiff/decree holders’ properties bearing nos. D-1/20 and D-1/21, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. 3. A reading of the judgment passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court on 14.7.2016 shows that the contention of the judgment debtor/BSES Rajdhani Power Limited was considered that it had not got enough time to shift the transformer which is a time consuming process and requires availability of alternative location. The Learned Single Judge has also noted in para 12 of the judgment dated 14.7.2016 that the written statement was filed in January, 2016 and therefore a period of six months had already expired for the defendant/judgment debtor/BSES Rajdhani Power Limited to take steps to find out any entitlement of the defendant/judgment debtor to continue its transformer and pole in the properties of the plaintiffs/decree holders. In para 12 it is also recorded that issue with respect to difficulty in shifting of the transformer would be an aspect which would be considered at the stage of execution of the decree for mandatory injunction. 4. The judgment debtor/BSES Rajdhani Power Limited is a licensee with respect to supply of electricity under the Electricity Act, 2003. A licensee who is granted license to supply electricity to the consumers is entitled to have works done for doing its business of supply and electricity, however that does not mean that works of the licensee such as the judgment debtor can be done by walking into any and every premises, i.e. works of the licensee/judgment debtor can only be on those premises with respect to which it has title, or it has permission/consent of the owner of the land or properties where the works of the licensee are fixed. It has already been held in the judgment passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court on 14.7.2016 in para 9 that there existed no documents of title in the defendant/judgment debtor with respect to properties of the plaintiffs/decree holders where the transformer etc of the defendant/judgment debtor were fixed. Also there are no documents showing permission was granted by the plaintiffs/decree holders for entitling the defendant/judgment debtor to continue the transformer and electricity poles in the premises of the plaintiffs/decree holders. Even today the position is the same and there are no documents available before this Court to show any entitlement of the defendant/judgment debtor to continue with its transformer and poles in the properties of the plaintiffs/decree holders. 5. Learned senior counsel for the defendant/judgment debtor firstly argued that judgment and decree passed by the Learned Single Judge is without inherent jurisdiction and is therefore void and for which purpose reliance is placed upon Section 145 of the Electricity Act. This Section 145 reads as under:- “Section 145 Civil courts not to have jurisdiction: No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an assessing officer referred to in section 126 or an appellate authority referred to in section 127 or the adjudicating officer appointed under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.” 6. To further buttress the argument with respect to Section 145 of the lectricity Act of civil court not having jurisdiction and therefore the judgment dated 14.7.2016 which has been passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court not being capable of being executed reliance is placed upon the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 and Second Proviso of Rule 3(1)(b) of the Works of Licensees Rules thereof read with Section 67(2)(i) of the Electricity Act and it is argued that it was only the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or other authorized officer who could have directed removal of the transformer or electricity poles and which direction/order could not be passed by a civil court i.e by passing of the impugned judgment dated 14.7.2016 in CS (OS) No. 2691/2015 by this Court. 7. 7. The provisions of Section 67 of the Electricity Act and Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules are reproduced as under:- Section 67 of The Electricity Act, 2003 “Section 67. Provisions as to opening up of streets, railways, etc: - (1) A licensee may, from time to time but subject always to the terms and conditions of his licence, within his area of supply or transmission or when permitted by the terms of his licence to lay down or place electric supply lines without the area of supply, without that area carry out works such as– (a) to open and break up the soil and pavement of any street, railway or tramway; (b) to open and break up any sewer, drain or tunnel in or under any street, railway or tramway; (c) to alter the position of any line or works or pipes, other than a main sewer pipe; (d) to lay down and place electric lines, electrical plant and other works; (e) to repair, alter or remove the same; (f) to do all other acts necessary for transmission or supply of electricity. (2) The Appropriate Government may, by rules made by it in this behalf, specify, (a) the cases and circumstances in which the consent in writing of the Appropriate Government, local authority, owner or occupier, as the case may be, shall be required for carrying out works; (b) the authority which may grant permission in the circumstances where the owner or occupier objects to the carrying out of works; (c) the nature and period of notice to be given by the licensee before carrying out works; (d) the procedure and manner of consideration of objections and suggestion received in accordance with the notice referred to in clause (c); (e) the determination and payment of compensation or rent to the persons affected by works under this section; (f) the repairs and works to be carried out when emergency exists; (g) the right of the owner or occupier to carry out certain works under this section and the payment of expenses therefor; (h) the procedure for carrying out other works near sewers, pipes or other electric lines or works; (i) the procedure for alteration of the position of pipes, electric lines, electrical plant, telegraph lines, sewer lines, tunnels, drains, etc.; (j) the procedure for fencing, guarding, lighting and other safety measures relating to works on streets, railways, tramways, sewers, drains or tunnels and immediate reinstatement thereof; (k) the avoidance of public nuisance, environmental damage and unnecessary damage to the public and private property by such works; (1) the procedure for undertaking works which are not repairable by the Appropriate Government, licensee or local authority; (m) the manner of deposit of amount required for restoration of any railways, tramways, waterways, etc.; (n) the manner of restoration of property affected by such works and maintenance thereof; (o) the procedure for deposit of compensation payable by the licensee and furnishing of security; and (p) such other matters as are incidental or consequential to the construction and maintenance of works under this section. (3) A licensee shall, in exercise of any of the powers conferred by or under this section and the rules made thereunder, cause as little damage, detriment and inconvenience as may be, and shall make full compensation for any damage, detriment or inconvenience caused by him or by any one employed by him. (3) A licensee shall, in exercise of any of the powers conferred by or under this section and the rules made thereunder, cause as little damage, detriment and inconvenience as may be, and shall make full compensation for any damage, detriment or inconvenience caused by him or by any one employed by him. (4) Where any difference or dispute including amount of compensation under sub-section (3) arises under this section, the matter shall be determined by the Appropriate Commission. (5) The Appropriate Commission, while determining any difference or dispute arising under this section in addition to any compensation under sub-section (3), may impose a penalty not exceeding the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section.” Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 3. Licensee to carry out works.-(1) A licensee may – (a) carry out works, lay down or place any electric supply line or other works in, through, or against, any building, or on, over or under any land whereon, whereover or whereunder any electric supply-line or works has not already been lawfully laid down or placed by such licensee, with the prior consent of the owner or occupier of any building or land; (b) fix any support of overhead line or any stay or strut required for the purpose of securing in position any support of an overhead line on any building or land or having been so fixed, may alter such support: Provided that in case where the owner or occupier of the building or land raises objections in respect of works to be carried out under this rule, the licensee shall obtain permission in writing from the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or any other officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf, for carrying out the works: Provided further that if at any time, the owner or occupier of any building or land on which any works have been carried out or any support of an overhead line, stay or strut has been fixed shows sufficient cause, the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, or the officer authorised may by order in writing direct for any such works, support, stay or strut to be removed or altered. (2) When making an order under sub-rule (1), the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or the officer so authorised, as the case may be, shall fix, after considering the representations of the concerned persons, if any, the amount of compensation or of annual rent, or of both, which should in his opinion be paid by the licensee to the owner or occupier. (3) Every order made by a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police or an authorised officer under sub-rule (1) shall be subject to revision by the Appropriate Commission. (4) Nothing contained in this rule shall effect the powers conferred upon any licensee under section 164 of the Act.” 8. I am afraid the contention urged on behalf of the judgment debtor/BSES Rajdhani Power Limited is not only completely misconceived but is an endeavour to mislead the Court. Firstly, surely this objection which is now taken in the present objections under Section 47 CPC was available to the defendant/judgment debtor during the suit but admittedly the same was not taken. Assuming that the same can be taken in execution proceedings because they concern the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, let us therefore examine the same. 9(i). A reading of Section 145 of the Electricity Act shows that civil court will not have jurisdiction only when there is power conferred under the Electricity Act upon an authority to do a particular thing and in which circumstances it is only the authority which will do that particular thing and hence civil court will not have jurisdiction to do that particular thing. In this case the particular thing is removal of transformer and electricity poles on the properties of the plaintiffs/decree holders. In this regard a reference to Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules and its Sub-Section (1) with its Sub-Sub-Section (a) shows that before the Second Proviso to Sub-Sub-Section (b) comes into application, the transformer or poles which have been fixed of which removal or displacement is sought have first found to have been fixed with the permission and license of the owner. It is not the position of law as per Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules that a licensee of electricity who has simply and illegally walked into any and every premises of anyone or someone, by fixing its works including transformers, electricity poles etc, so as to thereafter claim that though the works have been put without permission of the owners of the properties, however for removal of such works it is only the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police or other authorized officer, who can pass orders of removal of the works of the licensee such as transformer/electricity poles etc. The argument and contention urged on behalf of the defendant/judgment debtor is not in any manner supported by the provision of Second Proviso to Rule 3(1)(b) of the Works of Licensees Rules read with Section 145 and Section 67(2)(i) of the Electricity Act. The reliance placed upon Section 67 of the Electricity Act is misconceived because this provision pertains only to inter se rights and obligations of the licensor who gives permission to a licensee supplying electricity to the consumers. This provision of Section 67 of the Electricity Act which pertains to the works of licensees does not surely entitle a licensee to walk into, trespass onto and appropriate properties owned by citizens and in such illegally occupied properties get their works fixed such as transformers, electricity poles etc without any consent from the owner of the properties or any license or grant of tenancy title or any other title in favour of the licensee for the works of licensee to be fixed, and then contend that the works cannot be removed allegedly because of Works of Licensees Rules. Surely neither the Electricity Act nor any provision of any other law in this country entitles an automatic trespass by a person on the property of any other person. If I accept the argument urged on behalf of the defendant/judgment debtor to be correct it would mean that simply an entity which has a license to supply electricity in an area then such a licensee without being entitled to any land or property, and also not having any permission from the owner, can by force and as a matter of automatic right fix its works such as transformers, electricity poles etc in order to carry out its business of supply of electricity. (ii) This argument of the defendant/judgment debtor that this Court had no inherent jurisdiction to pass judgment dated 14.7.2016 in CS (OS) No. 2691/2015 is therefore rejected. 10(i). Learned senior counsel for the defendant/judgment debtor then argued that this Court will still have to go into the issue of grant of time to the defendant/judgment debtor to find an alternative location and it is sought to be argued that already discussions are taking place between the defendant/judgment debtor and the land agency being the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) as well as Delhi Government for land being available to the defendant/judgment debtor to fix the transformer and poles, and which is taking time, and therefore it is argued that decree for mandatory injunction should not be executed at this stage and it is argued that this is also so observed by the Learned Single Judge in the last line of para12 of the judgment dated 14.7.2016. (ii) In my opinion, even this argument is not available to the defendant/judgment debtor because it is seen that the suit was filed by the plaintiff/decree holder on 4.9.2015. Learned Single Judge of this Court has also recorded in para 12 of the judgment dated 14.7.2016 that sufficient time has been granted to the defendant (now judgment debtor) for considering its difficulty in removal of transformer and electricity poles for relocating the same, and since the suit was pending for quite some time there can be no reason for grant of further adjournment and the suit therefore had to be disposed of. From 14.7.2016 till date now about one year seven months have passed and yet the defendant/judgment debtor has not taken any license or lease or ownership of any alternative premises for fixing of the transformer and electricity poles which works enable supply of electricity to its consumers. Surely, it cannot be argued by the defendant/judgment debtor that it will take land only from the Government agency for fixing of transformers and poles and it is always open to the defendant/judgment debtor to take land from even a private land owner for fixing works to carry out the business of supply of electricity. Surely, it cannot be argued by the defendant/judgment debtor that it will take land only from the Government agency for fixing of transformers and poles and it is always open to the defendant/judgment debtor to take land from even a private land owner for fixing works to carry out the business of supply of electricity. Grant of license to licensee such as the defendant/judgment debtor to supply electricity and for it to fix works does not mean that the licensee such as the defendant/judgment debtor will not shift a transformer and pole fixed on a private land without permission on the ground that Government or its agency is not providing the land/property for fixing of the works of the licensee. I, therefore, reject the argument urged on behalf of the defendant/judgment debtor for grant of further time for it to remove its transformer and poles. 11. I may note that the defendant/judgment debtor had admittedly filed a review petition against the judgment dated 14.7.2016 which was rejected and even an appeal which is filed against the judgment dated 14.7.2016 was withdrawn. Therefore the judgment dated 14.7.2016 passed in CS(OS) No. 2691/2015 has become final. Though learned senior counsel for the defendant/judgment debtor sought to draw attention of this Court to certain orders passed by the Division Bench showing the process taken by the defendant/judgment debtor with land owning agencies so as to re-locate the transformer and electricity poles, in my opinion this aspect is not relevant any longer for deciding the objections because the issue ultimately is grant of time and so observed at the time of passing of judgment by the Learned Single Judge of this Court vide para 12 of the judgment dated 14.7.2016. I have already observed that the suit was filed in September, 2015, judgment was passed on 14.7.2016 and today we are in the end of February, 2018 yet the defendant/judgment debtor feels that it has not got sufficient time to get alternative property/location to fix its works which it has been directed to do in terms of the judgment which has been executed. reject the argument urged on behalf of the defendant/judgment debtor that further time be granted to the defendant/judgment debtor in view of what is stated in para 12 of the judgment dated 14.7.2016. 12. reject the argument urged on behalf of the defendant/judgment debtor that further time be granted to the defendant/judgment debtor in view of what is stated in para 12 of the judgment dated 14.7.2016. 12. In view of what has been discussed above this Court gets a feeling that the defendant/judgment debtor does not understand the meaning of due process of law and finality of judgments of Courts. I am sorry to observe that the defendant/judgment debtor is seeking to act like a toughie for refusing to comply with the orders of the Court. It is unacceptable that a gigantic organization such as BSES Rajdhani Power Limited deliberately wants to deny execution of the judgment and decree dated 14.7.2016 which has become final after dismissal of the review petition and withdrawal of the appeal filed by the defendant/judgment debtor. Objections which have been urged before this Court are also completely frivolous and an abuse of process of law. This application/objections under Section 47 CPC is therefore dismissed with costs of Rs.2,00,000/-in favour of the plaintiffs/decree holders and payable by the defendant/judgment debtor/BSES Rajdhani Power Limited because it is high time that huge organizations with financial muscle must understand that just by engaging lawyers and by raising frivolous objections they cannot deny execution of decree which has become final. Costs be paid within six weeks from today to the plaintiffs/decree holders and the cheque of costs be drawn in the name of decree holder no. 1. Ex.P. 146/2016 13. On the plaintiffs/decree holders filing process fee, let warrants of possession be issued Dasti and a bailiff be appointed for the plaintiffs/decree holders to take possession of the suit properties by removal of the transformer, poles or any other works which are fixed in the suit properties of the plaintiffs/decree holders and with respect to which the judgment and decree has been passed on 14.7.2016. Plaintiffs/decree holders are also held entitled to police aid for execution of decree and execution of warrants of possession including by removal of the works of the defendant/judgment debtor and the concerned Station House Officer (SHO) of the local police station will also give the necessary police assistance to the plaintiffs/decree holders on showing a certified copy of this order. Plaintiffs/decree holders are also held entitled to police aid for execution of decree and execution of warrants of possession including by removal of the works of the defendant/judgment debtor and the concerned Station House Officer (SHO) of the local police station will also give the necessary police assistance to the plaintiffs/decree holders on showing a certified copy of this order. However, only in the interest of justice it is ordered that the warrants of possession will be issued in favour of the plaintiffs/decree holders only after a period of one month from today. 14. List on 7th March, 2018, i.e. the date already fixed.