S. SUNDARI Vs. CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved over the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 12.09.2016 in W.P.No.31580 of 2016, the writ petitioner is before this Court with the present appeal.

(2.) Few facts, which led to filing of this writ appeal, are as follows: Both the appellant and the third respondent are adjacent land owners of the property in S.Nos.521/1-A and 521/2. The third respondent had filed a suit in O.S. No. 60/2008 before the Sub Court, Bhavani, seeking declaration, mandatory injunction and delivery of possession against the appellant. After contest, the said suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment dated 12.08.2010, the appellant had filed an appeal in A.S.No. 89 of 2010, which was dismissed on 07.04.2011. As against the same, the appellant had approached this Court with Second Appeal No.1068 of 2011, which was also dismissed on 31.10.2011. Thereafter, the appellant has filed an application to review the judgment made in S.A. No. 1068 of 2011, along with a delay condonation petition, which is pending before this Court. In the mean while, to execute the decree obtained, the third respondent is said to have filed E.P. No. 20 of 2011 and the same is also pending. In such circumstances, the appellant has requested the second respondent to provide electricity service connection to the disputed property. By order dated 25.05.2011, the second respondent rejected the appellant's request for electricity connection, citing the Civil Court's decree. The said order was challenged before this Court in W.P. No. 16196 of 2016, which was disposed of, with a direction to the appellant to appear before the first respondent therein and produce all the necessary documents and thereafter, the first respondent therein was directed to consider the same, after issuing notice to the appellant as well as to the third respondent and to pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the same, the appellant has approached the second respondent with all relevant materials. However, the second respondent, by order dated 25/26.05.2016, rejected the request of the appellant. Challenging the same, the appellant has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.31580 of 2016, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge of this Court, by the impugned order. Hence, this writ appeal by the writ petitioner.

(3.) Mr. P. Vijendran, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned single Judge of this Court has exceeded his jurisdiction in granting the relief and that, this Court ought not to have gone into the issue, when the Execution Petition is pending. In support of his contentions, he relied on the following judgments: