Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Dinabandhu Rana And Others vs Sri Kanai Rana And Others on 11 November, 2014
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
1 AD-26 November 11, 2014 md.
C.O. 3010 of 2014 Sri Dinabandhu Rana and others Vs. Sri Kanai Rana and others Mr. Mukteswar Maity ... for the petitioners Mr. Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee Mr. Raghunath Das .. for the opposite party no.1 (Vakalatnama not supplied) The petitioners complain of the appellate Court having allowed the first defendant to carry an electricity line from a pole on plot no.791 to the first defendant's exclusive property at plot no.787 where the line would pass over the petitioners' plot no.792 which is not the subject matter of the partition suit. The petitioners say that the nature of the order is such that the petitioners herein have been restrained from objecting to the reconnection of the electricity supply in favour of the first defendant at plot no.787 on any ground whatsoever.
The first defendant is represented upon notice. It is submitted by the first defendant that there was an existing electricity supply to the first defendant's 2 exclusive plot no.787, but since such connection passed through or over the petitioners' exclusive property at plot no.792, the petitioners ensured that the supply was disconnected. The first defendant claims that the electricity connection as directed by the appellate Court will not travel through or over the petitioners' exclusive property as would be evident from the order impugned itself.
The appellate Court has recorded that the petitioners' exclusive property, plot no.792, has a common boundary with the joint properties covering dag nos. 788, 789 and 791. The appellate Court came to a conclusion that an electricity connection from an electric pole planted on plot no.791 would travel through the boundaries of plot nos.788, 789 and 792 or the aal and not over plot no.792 which is the exclusive property of the petitioners.
In view of such finding of the appellate Court, the order impugned dated July 31, 2014, does not call for any interference. However, the operative part of the order is modified by observing that if the electricity connection travels over the aal between any other plot and plot no.792, the petitioners herein will not be 3 entitled to raise any objection thereto; but if the electricity connection travels over any part of plot no.792, the petitioners herein will be entitled to raise an objection in such regard with the distribution company for the distribution company to ensure that the electricity connection does not pass over plot no.792 at all and is, at the most, restricted to passing over the aal between plot no.792 and any other plot. C.O.3010 of 2014 is disposed of without any order as to costs.
The petitioners will be at liberty to serve a copy of this order on the distribution company. Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Sanjib Banerjee, J.)