Avanna v. A.Nagaraj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.M.P.No. 12571 of 2025 AVANNA ... Petitioner Vs.
1.
A.NAGARAJ 2.
THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, TANGEDCO, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT.
3.
THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (O & M) TANGEDCO, RAYAKOTTAI ROAD HOSUR, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT.
4.
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (O & M) TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, TALLY, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT.
5.
THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (O & M), TANGEDCO, TALLY, DENKANIKOTTAI TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI TALUK, 6.
THE JUNIOR ENGINEER, (O & M) TANGEDCO, THALLY, DENKANIKOTTAI TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT ... Respondent P RAYER : Review Application has been filed under order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure, pleased to review the order 1/5
dated 20.02.2025 in W.P.No. 5718 of 2025 on the file of this Court by allowing the Review Application.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Emalias For R1 : Mr.C.Prabakaran For R2 to R6 : Mr.S.Madusudanan
ORDER
This review application is filed seeking to review the order dated 20.02.2025 made in Writ Petition No. 5718 of 2025.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by taking this Court through the plaint filed in the connected original suit in O.S. No. 142 of 2024, would submit that when the petitioner as well as the respondents are parties to the suit, the directions ought not to have been issued by this Court. Further, the learned counsel submits that the respondents have suppressed the intervening documents and are wrongly claiming title and that the review petitioner has made out more than a prima facie case in the suit. He would further submit that merely because the electricity connection is granted, it should not lead to undue equitable benefits being claimed even before the civil suit is decided.
2/5
3. I have considered the submissions made by Mr.C.Emalias, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and heard Mr.C.Prabakaran, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.S.Madusudanan, the learned counsel appearing for the second to sixth respondent.
4. Admittedly, the suit is pending. However, there is no interim order in favour of the review petitioner. In the absence thereof, the grant of electricity connection cannot be put on hold. Needless to mention that the direction was granted by this Court pendentelite. Merely because the electricity connection has been granted in favour of one of the parties, the same cannot be pleaded as an advantage or equity before the Civil Court.
5. All grounds available to the review petitioner before the Civil Court are kept open, and the Civil Court will deal with the case concerning the declaration and other prayers made in the suit on its own merits, without being influenced by the fact that this Court had ordered the grant of an electricity connection. It is needless to mention that, ultimately, depending on the ownership of the property, the name in which the electricity connection stands can also be changed.
3/5
6. It is noted that the suit has been pending since from the year 2024. As some urgency is pleaded on behalf of the review petitioner, the learned Subordinate Judge, Denkanikottai, shall endeavour to dispose of O.S. No. 142 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible and in any event, not later than a period of eighteen months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
7. With the above observations, the review petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 08.07.2025 nsl To 1.
THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, TANGEDCO, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT.
2.
THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (O & M) TANGEDCO, RAYAKOTTAI ROAD HOSUR, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT.
3.
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (O & M) TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, TALLY, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT.
4.
THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (O & M), TANGEDCO, TALLY, DENKANIKOTTAI TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI TALUK, 5.
THE JUNIOR ENGINEER, (O & M) TANGEDCO, THALLY, DENKANIKOTTAI TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT 4/5
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
nsl 08.07.2025 5/5