PRANAB BANERJEE Vs. BITHIKA MAHATO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the order dated January 18, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Purulia in Title Suit No. 107 of 2009 thereby rejecting an application filed by the defendants for restitution of the electricity at their premises.

(2.) THE short fact is that the plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and other reliefs against the petitioners in respect of the suit property as described in the schedule of the plaint. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff / opposite party herein that he had purchased the suit property from the previous owner, i.e., the proforma / opposite party no.2 by a registered deed of sale and the defendants had been in permissive possession of the suit property under the previous owner.

(3.) MS. Sulekha Mitra appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the plaintiff being the vendee had stepped into the shoes of his vendor, i.e., the proforma / opposite party herein and as such, the plaintiff is bound to supply electricity in the suit property under occupation of the defendants. In support of her contention, she has relied on the following decisions:-