Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Before the trial Court, in the main suit, one to two issues have been framed for determination. On behalf of the Respondent/Plaintiff, witness P.W.1 has been examined and Ex.A1 has been marked. On the side of the Appellants/Defendants, witness D.W.1 has been examined and Exs.B1 to B5 have been marked.

4. The trial Court, on appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, has come to a clear conclusion that the Respondent/Plaintiff has sought permission with the Appellants/Defendants to pay a sum of Rs.9,494.50 in instalments and as regards the sum of Rs.9,494.50, the same is not hit by limitation and directed the Respondent/Plaintiff to pay the aforesaid amount to the Appellants/Defendants and also the Appellants/Defendants have been directed to receive the sum of Rs.9,494.50 from the Respondent/Plaintiff and to give reconnection to the disconnected electric supply and accordingly, passed a Decree of mandatory injunction without costs. The Respondent/Plaintiff has also been granted a month's time to pay the said sum of Rs.9,494.50 to the Appellants/Defendants.

The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on Substantial Questions of Law :

6. According to the Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants/Defendants (E.B.), both the Courts below ought to have dismissed the suit in limine and should have held that the Respondent/Plaintiff is not entitled to claim the relief of mandatory injunction as claimed for by him in the plaint.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Defendants (E.B.), urges before this Court that the suit service connection in S.C.No.36:144:90 (in the name of the Respondent/Plaintiff) has been disconnected long back and the Respondent/Plaintiff can only seek for a fresh service connection.

12. According to the Respondent/Plaintiff, he is a member of the Thamilaga Vivasayigal Sangam and in view of the order of the High Court in Writ Proceedings, the Respondent/Plaintiff is not liable for any belated payment of surcharge.

13. The Respondent/Plaintiff has averred that he is prepared to pay whatever amount that he is legally liable to pay to the Electricity Board and he is not liable for any belated payment of surcharge. Furthermore, finally he approached the Appellants/Defendants (E.B.) on 22.12.1992 offering to pay the dues legally recoverable from him demanded for reconnection and the Appellants/Defendants (E.B.) have been evasive and not at all receptive. Therefore, he has filed a suit praying for the relief of mandatory injunction in directing the Appellants/Defendants (E.B.), their men, servants, agents and subordinates to give electricity supply and reconnection to the suit service connection viz., S.C.No.36:144:90 in Perumalkuppam Village, Ponneri Taluk.

31. The mandate prescribed under Sections 20 or 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1910 cannot be superceded, circumvented or supplanted or evaded or avoided by any Court of Law to grant the relief of injunction, muchless the mandatory injunction as sought for by the Respondent/Plaintiff in the suit.

32. To put it succinctly, both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court have committed serious material irregularity coupled with patent illegality in decreeing the suit and has taken away the right of the Electricity Board to collect its lawful and legitimate dues to be paid by the Respondent/Plaintiff.