MODI BACHUBHAI SANKALCHAND Vs. AHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dismissing the plaintiff's suit rendered by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court (9th Court), Ahmedabad on 28-12-1987 in Civil Suit No. 792 of 1982.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the electric section pillar erected by the defendant in front of and adjacent to the plaintiff's property. The plaintiff's property is located in Panditji's Pole, Sarangpur, Ahmedabad in Khadia Ward 3 and bears Survey No. 2481, hereinafter described as "the suit property". The suit property is abutting on the public road and it is the case of the plaintiff that on the southern side of the entrance door of the suit property the defendant-company erected the aforesaid section pillar. It is the case of the plaintiff that the existence of the said section pillar not only obstructs the passage of the plaintiff, but it also causes annoyance and nuisance inasmuch as passers-by and the people from the neighbouring area would throw dirt and dust nearby the pillar. It is, therefore, alleged by the plaintiff that the erection of the section pillar amounts to a clear obstruction to the enjoyment of the plaintiff's property and it, therefore, deserves to be removed. Plaintiff served the defendant with notice dated 10-6-1982 for this cause and as the defendant did not reply to the notice he was constrained to file the suit in question.

(3.) The defendant resisted the suit by written statement Ex. 9 inter alia on the allegations that the section pillar has been erected for long and at the time of erection of the section pillar there was no representation, written or oral, in respect of the same likely to be causing any obstruction in enjoyment of anybody's property. The section pillar was erected for the smooth supply of electricity in the area and for the immediate search of the fault in the cables as and when such fault arises. It is the say of the defendant that erection of such section pillar is required area-wise so that the defects and faults can be easily detected and in case of power failure the electric supply can be restored. It is asserted that such an arrangement is very necessary to protect the very sophisticated instruments being used by the public at large and that it is in the public interest to erect such section pillars. According to the say of the defendant the section pillar came to be erected on a public road and not on any private property and that its size and design are strictly as per the technical requirements. The company is at liberty to choose the site where such section pillars are required to be erected depending upon and keeping in mind the technical requirement involved. Since the section pillars are to be erected on public roads it would not be necessary for the defendant to consult adjoining residents of the area before erection of the pillars as alleged by the plaintiff. It is finally the say of the defendant that after erection of the section pillar at the particular place the plaintiff got his property renovated and therefore, it cannot be said that the pillar causes obstruction in the passage to the property and nuisance and annoyance in the enjoyment thereof as contended by the plaintiff.