Skip to content


S. Sundari Vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P.No. 31580 of 2016 & W.M.P.Nos. 27415 & 27416 of 2016
Judge
AppellantS. Sundari
RespondentThe Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and Others
Excerpt:
.....all the amenities, in respect of the property including electricity connection; (ii) the original suit filed by the 3rd respondent itself is not maintainable and therefore, there cannot be any decree as against the petitioner; (iii) the petitioner has got right to file an slp against the judgment passed by this court in s.a. no. 1068 of 2011. further, a review petition has been filed to review the judgment passed in s.a. no. 1068 of 2011 dated 31.10.2011 and that the same is pending before this court. therefore, the impugned order has to be quashed and electricity connection, as sought by the petitioner, has to be granted. 8. heard mr.s.k. raameshuwar, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and mr.t.m. pappiah, learned special government pleader for the newly impleaded 4th respondent......
Judgment:

(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandmaus to call for the records from the 2nd respondent pertaining to the impugned order Ka.No. U.MI.PO/E PE/ME/PA/KO. CASE/No. 054/2016 dated 25/26.05.2016, quash the same and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to provide electricity connection to the petitioner's premises at 6/176A, Om Shakthi Nagar, Thalapaiyanur, Thottipalayam Post, Bhavani, Erode District.)

1. This writ petition is filed for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the 2nd respondent pertaining to the impugned order Ka.No. U.MI.PO/E PE/ME/PA/KO. CASE/No. 054/2016 dated 25/26.05.2016, quash the same and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to provide electricity connection to the petitioner's premises at 6/176A, Om Shakthi Nagar, Thalapaiyanur, Thottipalayam Post, Bhavani, Erode District.

2. For proper adjudication of the issue in question, this Court deems it fit to, suo motu, implead the Superintendent of Police, Erode District, as a party to the writ petition. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Erode District, is suo motu, impleaded as 4th respondent in the writ petition and Mr.T.M. Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the newly impleaded 4th respondent.

3. If this writ petition is allowed, it would amount to overturning the decree passed by the Civil Court, against the petitioner, at the instance of the 3rd respondent, which has been confirmed by the Appellate Court and further confirmed by this Court. In such an event, people, who approach the Courts, with the fond hope of getting the relief, would be frustrated and it would go against the very interest of justice delivery system.

4. The petitioner contends that she has built a house in S.No. 521/1A, wherein the total extent of the land is 36 cents. According to the petitioner, she entered into a sale agreement on 14.12.2007 with one of the legal heirs of one Maran, by name, Muniyan and got the sale deed registered on 13.02.2008. The 3rd respondent is said to have purchased properties from two other legal heirs of Maran, to an extent of 9 cents each, totalling to 18 cents. The said document was registered on 23.01.2008. According to the petitioner, the properties purchased by the 3rd respondent lie adjacent to the petitioner's property.

5. The 3rd respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 60/2008 before the Sub Court, Bhavani, seeking declaration, mandatory injunction and delivery of possession against the petitioner. After contest, the said suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment dated 12.08.2010, the petitioner herein, along with two others, filed an appeal suit in A.S.No. 89 of 2010 before the Principal District Court, Erode. The said Appeal Suit was dismissed on 07.04.2011. As against the same, Second Appeal No. 1068 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner and the same was also dismissed on 31.10.2011. Thereafter, to execute the decree obtained, the 3rd respondent is said to have filed E.P. No. 20 of 2011 and the same is pending. Belatedly, a review petition, to review the judgment dated 31.10.2011 passed by this Court in S.A. No. 1068 of 2011, along with a delay condonation petition, said to have been filed in 2016, is also pending before this Court.

6. When things stand so, the petitioner is said to have approached the 2nd respondent and applied for electricity connection in the disputed place and the 3rd respondent is said to have given his objection. By order dated 25.05.2011, the petitioner's request for electricity connection was rejected quoting the Civil Court's decree. The said order was challenged before this Court in W.P. No. 16196 of 2016 and by order dated 28.04.2016, while declining to grant the relief sought by the petitioner, this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the 1st respondent therein, produce necessary records to establish that there was no Civil Court's decree against her, as on date, and thereafter, the 1st respondent therein was directed to consider the petitioner's representation, after issuing notice to the petitioner as well as to the 3rd respondent herein and to pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner is said to have approached the 2nd respondent with all relevant materials. However, the petitioner's prayer for giving electricity connection to her premises was negatived by the 2nd respondent by order dated 25/26.05.2016. The said order is being challenged before this Court in this writ petition.

7. Heard Mr. P. Vijendran, learned counsel for the petitioner, who made the following submissions:

(i) As long as the petitioner is in possession of the property, she is entitled to all the amenities, in respect of the property including electricity connection;

(ii) The original suit filed by the 3rd respondent itself is not maintainable and therefore, there cannot be any decree as against the petitioner;

(iii) The petitioner has got right to file an SLP against the judgment passed by this Court in S.A. No. 1068 of 2011. Further, a review petition has been filed to review the judgment passed in S.A. No. 1068 of 2011 dated 31.10.2011 and that the same is pending before this Court. Therefore, the impugned order has to be quashed and electricity connection, as sought by the petitioner, has to be granted.

8. Heard Mr.S.K. Raameshuwar, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.T.M. Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader for the newly impleaded 4th respondent. Inasmuch as no order prejudicial to the 3rd respondent's interest is passed, notice to him is dispensed with.

9. It is seen that the suit in O.S. No. 60 of 2008 was filed by the 3rd respondent before Sub Court, Bhavani and all the contentions raised herein were also canvassed by the petitioner before the said Court. However, the said contentions were negatived and a decree for declaration, mandatory injunction and delivery of possession of the property was granted, as early as on 12.08.2010. The decree of the Trial Court was confirmed by the Appellate court in A.S. No. 89 of 2010 and it was further confirmed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 1068 of 2011 by judgment dated 31.10.2011. Pendency of condone delay petition, filed along with review petition, to review the judgment dated 31.10.2011 passed in S.A. No. 1068 of 2011 cannot be a ground to get electricity connection. When the Civil Court, where the parties have right to raise their pleadings and adduce evidence, both oral and documentary, had already gone into the issue, and granted the relief to the 3rd respondent, thereby negativing the claim of the petitioner, which was also confirmed by the Appellate Court and further by this Court, it is not open to the petitioner to re-agitate the matter by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is nothing but clear abuse of process of law.

10. Further, it is curious to note that, even after winning before all the Forums including the Highest Forum of the State, namely, this Court, the 3rd respondent seems to have been compelled to file another suit in O.S. No. 158 of 2012, wherein the petitioner herein was arrayed as 3rd respondent along with Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Gobi Electricity Distribution Circle, Gobichettipalayam and Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Bhavani West, Junior Engineer's Office, Bhavani, seeking permanent injunction from providing electricity connection to the house of the petitioner herein. The said suit was also decreed as early as on 28.11.2014. Paragraphs 20 and 21 of the judgment passed in O.S. No. 158 of 2012 are extracted as follows:

( Language )

However, even after two rounds of litigation, the 3rd respondent is unable to enjoy the fruits of the decree obtained by him as the petitioner herein has been filing suits and writ petitions abusing the process of law. From the above extract, it is clear that having suffered adverse decisions in the earlier round of litigation, upto this Court and also having suffered another decree in O.S. No. 158 of 2012, the petitioner cannot even approach this Court. If any electricity connection is given, as prayed for, it would amount to overturning the decree granted in O.S. No. 60 of 2008, as confirmed by the Appellate Court as well as by this Court and also the decree granted in O.S. NO. 158 of 2012. If the parties, who approach the Court and are successful in getting the relief sought, are unable to enjoy the same, even after lapse of 8 years, it would only drive them to approach thugs or indulge in highhandedness so as to execute the relief granted. Courts have come into existence only to safeguard the bona fide litigants and their rights. Therefore, litigants like the petitioner should not be encouraged, which would, otherwise, amount to allowing abuse and misuse of process of law. It is apparent that the petitioner has been abusing the process of law by filing writ petitions after writ petitions thereby preventing the 3rd respondent from executing the decree obtained by him. In such view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is sustainable and the petitioner is not entitled to any electricity connection at all, as the decrees are operating against the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected W.M.P.s are closed.

11. Though a heavy amount has to be slapped on the petitioner as costs, due to judicial restraint, this Court is not imposing any cost on the petitioner.

12. The decrees passed by the Courts below, as confirmed by this Court, are part of justice delivery system and if any party tries to abuse it, the same should have to be viewed very seriously. This Court, has to, not only see that the orders passed by this Court are complied with, but it has also got an obligation to see that the orders passed by the Lower Courts are respected, acted upon and implemented. In this case, the decree passed by the Trial Court, in O.S. No. 60 of 2008 on 12.08.2010 as confirmed by this Court in S.A. No. 1068 of 2011 by judgment dated 31.10.2011, has not been, till date, allowed to be executed by the petitioner, in E.P. No. 20 of 2011, by filing a petition under Section 47 CPC as usual. Section 47 CPC is regularly employed by judgment debtor (s) to prevent the decree holder (s) from executing the lawful decree for years together. In this case, even after getting decree in 2010, the 3rd respondent could not get possession of the property. Hence, the Executing Court is direted to dispose of the petition filed under Section 47 CPC filed by the petitioner in the above said E.P. within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Superintendent of Police, Erode District, is directed to give police protection to enable the 3rd respondent to take possession of the property in question within four weeks thereafter. After putting the 3rd respondent in possession, in due execution of the decree, the 4th respondent is directed to file a compliance report before this Court.

13. Post the writ petition after ten weeks for filing of compliance report by the 4th respondent.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //