1. On the ground that the defendants are not in lawful occupation of the disputed premises, but are trespassers, the petitioner opposed the supply of electricity connection to the suit premises which are in possession and occupation of the defendants. As per the petitioner's allegation, the defendants are occupying the premises illegally and unauthorizedly.
2. The opponent No.1 herein had filed Regular Civil Suit No.104/2007 against present opponent Nos.2, 3 and 4. The petitioner herein is the constituted attorney of the owner of the suit premises. In the said suit, present respondent No.1 i.e. original plaintiff prayed for direction to the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 to get electricity supply connection installed in the suit premises.
3. Initially, the respondent herein did not implead present petitioner in the said suit proceedings.
4. Since the owner of the suit premises was not impleaded as party to the said suit proceeding, an application for being impleaded as party to the said suit proceedings was made by the owner of the premises through the constituted attorney.
5. The said request came to be granted by the learned Trial Court and present petitioner was impleaded as the opponent No.4 in the said suit proceedings.
6. After hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court disallowed the application Exh:5 by order dated 30.05.2009.
7. Aggrieved by the said order dated 30.05.2009, the plaintiff preferred an appeal along with which he also preferred an application for interim relief (Exh:5) in the said appeal proceedings.
8. The said Exh:5 application was heard by the learned First Appellate Court and by order dated 18.05.2010, the learned First Appellate Court set aside the order of the learned Trial Court and directed the Electricity Company to restore the disconnected supply of electricity.
9. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred present petition.
10. The impugned order was passed on 18.05.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner herein had made an application before the learned First Appellate Court requesting to suspend the operation of the said order dated 18.05.2010.
11. The First Appellate Court passed order suspending the order until 24.05.2010.
12. It appears that the petitioner herein did not take any steps until 24.05.2010 or even immediately after 24.05.2010 for instituting any proceedings against the said order dated 18.05.2010.
13. Thus, the order passed by the learned First Appellate Court suspending its order has come to an end since 24.05.2010. As a result of which the order dated 18.05.2010 has been in operation since 25.05.2010.
14. In the circumstances, the direction passed by the learned First Appellate Court by the order dated 18.05.2010 must have been carried out by now.
15. Even otherwise, whether the opponent No.1 herein is a trespasser or not and/or whether he is in unauthorized occupation of the premises in question, are the issues required to be decided by the learned Trial Court of competent jurisdiction or in the eviction proceedings, if any.
16. The learned advocate for the petitioner herein has submitted that in all probability, as per her belief, the petitioner has preferred eviction proceedings against the opponent No.1.
17. If that be so, the issue as to whether the opponent No.1 is a trespasser or not, will be considered and decided by the learned Trial Court.
18. However, until the issue is decided by the Competent Court and unless the opponent-Electricity Company finds anything objectionable, under its regulation, in supplying the electricity connection in the suit premises, the petitioner would not have any right in law to oppose such electricity connection and the defendants, who claim to be the legal and authorized occupant and not trespasser (as alleged by the petitioners) cannot be deprived of basic necessity viz. power supply. The learned Court has declined to restrain the electricity camp from supplying/connecting power connection to the suit premises. The decision to decline such relief, in the facts of case, cannot be said to be wrong or arbitrary.
19. The petitioner has failed to make out case against the impugned order asking the Electricity Company to grant/restore electricity connection. I do not see any error in the impugned order.
20. The petitioner is opposing the order only on the ground that according to the petitioner, the opponent No.1 is a trespasser. Any other ground against the impugned order is not urged and/or made out.
21. The contention raised against the impugned direction is not sustainable in law and deserves to be rejected. The petition, therefore, fails and is hereby rejected.
(K.M.
Thaker, J.) rakesh/ Top