Abhay Behara vs Shambhu Nath Das & Ors.

The defendant in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of an immovable property has preferred the present revisional application.

Initially, the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 had prayed for and obtained an order of injunction restraining the defendant/petitioner from taking electric

connection in respect of the suit property. Despite subsistence of such ad interim injunction, the petitioner had taken out an application for getting

electric connection to the suit property, which was allowed by the trial court. Such order being challenged in revision, a co-ordinate bench of this Court

set aside such order with some observations made therein.

Subsequently, the injunction application of the opposite party no. 1 was disposed of on contest, making the ad interim order of injunction absolute.

Thereafter, instead of preferring an appeal against the said injunction order, the petitioner chose to repeat his previous act by taking out a second

application for getting electric connection to the suit property. In such application, the petitioner prayed for being permitted to take electric connection

and the defendant no. 1, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, was sought to be directed to supply such electricity. In a

subsequent rejoinder filed by the petitioner, necessary order for supply of electricity to the petitioner was sought, “maintaining the order of

injunctionâ€​. Copies of both the said application and rejoinder are filed today in Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner cites a decision reported at (2012) 1 WBLR (SC) 212 (Chandu Khamaru vs. Nayan Malik & Ors.) where the

Supreme Court held that an owner or an occupier of any premises located in the area of the distribution licensee had statutory right to apply for and

obtain electric supply from the distribution licensee. However, the factual situation in such case, as apparent from the judgment itself, was entirely

different. In that case, no subsisting injunction order was there to restrict the occupier or owner from applying for electricity.

It is evident that the conduct of the petitioner in applying for the second time for electric connection in gross violation of the subsisting injunction order,

as well as in contravention of the earlier order passed by a co-ordinate bench of this court setting aside a similar prayer, is almost contumacious.

Irrespective of whatever right the petitioner might have under the law to get electric connection, the modus operandi adopted by the petitioner is not

only recalcitrant but repetitive. Not being deterred by the earlier attempt to violate the then subsisting ad interim injunction order being foiled, the

petitioner has renewed efforts now to contravene the final order of ad interim injunction passed by the trial court by applying for the second time for

getting electric connection.

Nothing prevented the petitioner from preferring a legitimate challenge against the injunction order before an appellate forum. Instead of doing so, the

petitioner chose to take the path of repeating the contumacious action. Since it is seen from the affidavit portion of the present application under

Section 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has described himself to be unemployed, this Court chooses to relieve the petitioner for the time

being from stringent action for such contumacious act. However, the petitioner has to suffer costs for the aforesaid attempt to contravene legitimate

orders of court repeatedly.

Accordingly, C.O. No. 1133 of 2018 is dismissed without interfering with the order impugned herein. However, in view of the gross contumacious

conduct of the petitioner, the petitioner will pay costs assessed at Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only to the opposite party no. 1 within a

week from date. Such moderate quantum has been directed only keeping in view that the petitioner has described himself as unemployed in the

affidavit portion of the present application.

Otherwise, the quantum fixed as costs would have been much higher to be an effective deterrent against such litigant. It is made clear that the

payment of such costs is mandatory. In default of such payment of costs, the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 would be entitled to take out due proceeding

for execution of such order of costs. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of

all requisite formalities.