TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. AMIR NISHA BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellants/Defendants have preferred this Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.03.1996 in A.S.No.14 of 1996 on the file of the Learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) THE First Appellate Court viz., the Learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in the Judgment in A.S.No.14 of 1996 on 29.03.1996 has among other things observed that '...It is just fair to direct the Defendants to remove the Transformer and three poles from the land of the Plaintiff and that the trial Court has granted the relief of mandatory injunction after bearing in mind of the facts and as such, no case has been made out to interfere with the Judgment of the trial Court and resultantly, dismissed the Appeal without costs' thereby confirming the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court.

(3.) AT the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been framed by this Court: (i) Whether the trial Court has not committed error by not framing any issue as to the maintainability of the suit for want of jurisdiction especially when the suit was questioned by the Defendants? (ii) Whether the suit is not maintainable in City Civil Court, Madras, when admittedly the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the District Munsif, Paramakudi?" CONTENTIONS, DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS ON SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW Nos.1 and 2: