AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is an application filed by the defendants/appellants/petitioners praying for an order permitting appellants to install electric metre for their personal
consumption in the premises, which they are in occupation.
The case made out by the petitioners/appellants is that they were in occupation in a portion of the suit premises in respect of which decree for
permanent injunction has been passed by both the Courts below, however, the appeal has been admitted by this Court and no stay order admittedly has
been obtained by the appellants in this second appeal.
The appellants filed an application in 2014 before the CESC Limited for supply of electricity at the portion of the suit premises, which according to
them is their exclusive possession. It has been submitted that in view of the pendency of the second appeal the Authority concerned is not inclined
to grant any permission for installation of the new metre for supply of electricity in their portion of the suit premises.
The learned Advocate submits that unless an order is passed from this Court clarifying that pendency of the second appeal will not stand in the way of
granting electricity connection in the premises, in possession of the appellants, the Authority will not grant any order of installation of electricity.
Mr. Anit Rakshit, learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs/respondents strenuously opposes this application. He submits that since defendants
are suffering a decree for permanent injunction in respect of the self-same premises, they cannot be permitted to obtain any electricity connection in
the suit premises.
Record reveals that after admission of the second appeal, an application, being CAN 9555 of 2012 filed by these petitioners seeking repair of a portion
of the suit premises which is in their occupation. In order to ascertain the state of affairs of the suit property and the structures lying therein including
the occupation thereof by the petitioners, this Court appointed a Special Officer and after such Special Officer filed a report, an order was passed on
July 15, 2013 thereby permitting the petitioners to make necessary repair of the suit property at the cost of the petitioners.
Since, it appears before this Court that on an earlier occasion in presence of both the parties an order was passed permitting the appellants/petitioners
to undertake necessary repair work in their portion of the suit property, there is no reason to refuse the petitioners to obtain electricity connection for
their smooth habitation.
Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners draws attention of this Court to paragraph 4 of the said application, being CAN 9555 of 2012 where
he pleaded that he was in possession and his portion is in dilapidated condition, and therefore, the said portion requires repair. Controverting the said
pleading in paragraph 4, the present respondents/opposite parties used affidavit-in-opposition and in paragraph 7 of such affidavit, they have stated :
“I categorically state that the petitioners long back have already made repair of the suit property in their possession and they have filed the instant
application only to harass the opposite parties and to create unnecessary trouble to the opposite parties. It would appear from the enquiry report
submitted by the ASI of Bhadreswar Police Station on the application under Section 144(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Case No.
S/662/12P. No. 1292/CR/CGR dated 13.08.2012 filed by the petitioners in the Court of the Learned Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate,
Chandannagar, Hooghly to the effect that there are two tileshed rooms of the petitioners and the opposite parties in the suit property and the suit
rooms are very old and it requires repair and since the suit property has not been partitioned between the parties the petitioners after taking permission
from the Court have already made repair and/or altered the rotten bamboos and the tile-shed and repair the tile-shed and without taking leave of the
Court the petitioners having tried to renovate and change the nature and character of the suit property, the opposite parties resisted the petitioners
about their such action. As such there is no need for further repair of the suit premises.â€
Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and the materials disclosed in the application it appears to this Court, there is no reason to
disallow the petitioners from getting electricity connection at the portion of the premises which is in their occupation and particularly which was
allowed to be required by this Court by the aforesaid order in CAN 9555 of 2012.
Therefore, this application is allowed with liberty to the petitioners to obtain electricity connection from the concerned Authority subject to compliance
of all formalities in accordance with the Electricity Act, 2003. However, while taking such electricity connection in the possession of the petitioners,
the petitioners are restrained from causing any disturbance to the respondents possession over the suit property in any manner whatsoever. The
connection if made by the Authority, the petitioners shall not claim any equity in their favour. Needless to mention, that this permission for obtaining
electricity connection is granted subject to the outcome of the pending second appeal.
Accordingly, the application is disposed of.