← Library
Madras High CourtREV.APPL/78/2017allowed

M.Muthusamy v. Abinaya Muthusamy

2018-06-07Honourable Dr Justice G. Jayachandran5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.06.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH Rev. Apln. (W) Nos.78 and 79 of 2017 S.Chithra ..

Petitioner in Rev.Apl.(W) No.78 of 2017 B.Vijayakumar ..

Petitioner in Rev.Apl.(W) No.79 of 2017 Vs.

1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tamil Nadu Generation and Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd., Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.

2.The Assistant Electrical Engineer (O & M), Tamil Nadu Generation and Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd., Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tiruppur Electricity Distribution Circle, Nallur, Tiruppur.

3.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Visveswara Swamy Temple, Nallur, Tiruppur.

..

Respondents in both Rev. Applns

Review Applications preferred under Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 114 of C.P.C. against the order of this Court made in W.P. Nos.43849 and 43850 of 2016 dated 22.03.2017. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam in both Rev.Applns.

For Respondents : Mr.S.K.Rameshwar for R1 and R2 Mr.M.Maharaja, Spl. Govt. Pleader for R3 in both Rev.Applns.

ORDER

Seeking to review the order dated 22.03.2017 made in W.P. Nos.43849 and 43850 of 2016, the present Review Applications have been filed.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent. 3.The operative portion of the order has been complied with and thus the petitioners have been given service connection. The grievance of the petitioners appears to be that for the others, this

Court has directed service connection to be given in the name of the occupants as against the petitioners. In the cases on hand, the service connection has been directed to be given in the name of the temple. 4.There is no necessity to review the order. Admittedly, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the respective tenements. Mere service connection in the name of the temple viz., the third respondent does not have any bearing to the title. Therefore, in effect, there is no difference as the petitioners have been given service connection.

5.With the aforesaid observation, the Review Applications stand disposed of. Even otherwise the petitioners stand on the same footing as that of the others. It is made clear that in such view of the matter, the second respondent shall receive the electricity consumption charges from the petitioners.

21.06.2017 Index:Yes/No mmi

M.M.SUNDRESH, J.

mmi To 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tamil Nadu Generation and Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd., Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.

2.The Assistant Electrical Engineer (O & M), Tamil Nadu Generation and Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd., Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tiruppur Electricity Distribution Circle, Nallur, Tiruppur.

3.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Visveswara Swamy Temple, Nallur, Tiruppur.

Rev. Appln. Nos.78 and 79 of 2017 21.06.2017

http://www.judis.nic.in