Allowed

D R Thulasi Prasad v. T Narasimhulu

Andhra Pradesh HC25 Apr 2024CRP/2649/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227, setting aside an order from the Additional Junior Civil Judge that restored an electricity connection. The Court held the Electricity Department was not a party to the suit, rendering the relief beyond the judge's jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 05.07.2019. No order as to costs.

D R Thulasi Prasad Vs T Narasimhulu — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

o'
o

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2649 OF 2019

¶8

Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 05.07.2019 in I.A.No.312 of 2019 in O.S.No.376 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge. Madanapalle, Chittoor District.

¶9

Between:

¶10

D.R. Thulasi Prasad, S/o Radha Krishnam Naidu aged about 59 years, R/o D.No. 11-81, Dr.Cousins Road, Madanapalle town, Chittoor District.

¶11

D.R.Sreedhar Naidu, S/o Radha Krishnam Naidu, aged about 59 years, R/o D.No. 11-81, Dr.Cousins Road, Madanapalle town, Chittoor District

¶12

...Petitioners/Respondents 1&2/Defendants 1&2

¶13

AND

¶14

Thoppineni Narasimhulu, S/o T.Mallappa, aged about 48 years, R/o 2- 250-B-M, Behind Saw Mill, Kadiri Road, B.K.Palle, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶15

... Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶16

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

¶17

The Tahsildar, Madanapalle Mandal, Madanapalle,^{ChittoorDistrict.}

¶18

...Respondents/Respondents/Defendant 3 & 4

¶19

■■■ i ■; 4. Tldid Qommissioner, Madnapalli Municipality, Madanapalle,^Chittoor District.

¶20

The Divisional Engineer, Distribution Town, Madanapalle,^A.P. TRANSCO, Madanapalle town, Chittoor District.

¶21

(R2 to R4 are not necessary parties to this CRP)

¶22

...Respondents/Proposed Defendants

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶24

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to stay the Order passed in I.A.No. 312 of 2019 in O.S.No.^{376of2014dt.05-7-} 2019 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, pending disposal of the above revision^{petition,andpass}

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P GANGA RAMI REDDY

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA

¶27

The Court made the following Order:

¶28

APHC010287542019

¶29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶30

[3458]

¶31

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶32

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶33

PRESENT

¶34

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶35

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2649/2019

¶36

Between:

¶37

D R Thulasi Prasad and Others

¶38

...PETITIONER(S)

¶39

AND

¶40

T Narasimhulu and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶42

1.PGANGA RAMI REDDY

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶44

1.MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA

¶45

The Court made the following:

¶46

ORDER:-

¶47

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 05.07.2019 in I.A.No.312 of 2019 in O.S.No.376 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, in restoring the electricity connection to the petition schedule property.

¶48

2 'I

¶49

The revision petitioners are defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit filed by the respondent plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction, The respondent/plaintiff contends that the suit property belongs to the Government, and the said land was provided for the construction of houses for the weaker section of society. And that the plaintiffs had cleared the suit land, which was covered by boulders and thorny bushes. And that they have constructed a house over the said land, It is stated that the petitioners/defendants had an eye on the property and tried to interfere with the suit schedule property. Therefore, it is stated that he had to file the present suit. The Municipal Authorities, under the influence of the defendants, have removed their names from the municipal records, and the Electricity Department has also highhandedly disconnected the electricity^connectionto the petition-scheduled property. The petitioner/defendants filed their counter affidavit stating that the respondent/plaintiff was only a watchman to the suit schedule property, and he created false documents to usurp the property. The Electricity Department, on enquiry, found that the electricity connection was obtained based on fake documents and disconnected the power connection. Similarly, the Municipal Authorities. Pending disposal of the suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed the subject application seeking restoration of the power connection.

¶50

The learned Judge allowed the said application. Observing that “Electricity is an integral part of life and it has become the basic necessity for human being and the disputes relating to suit property is pending for

¶51

¶52

considerable long time. Further, if the petitioner failed to prove his right over suit property the possession of the suit house will go along with the electricity service connection.

¶53

Heard Sri P.Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶54

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent fraudulently obtained a power connection and mutated his name in the revenue records based on fake documents. The learned counsel further contends that the order of the learned Judge directing the Electricity Department to reconnect the power connection is beyond its jurisdiction.

¶55

Considered the rival submissions.

¶56

The Electricity Department was not a party to the suit^whentheorder under revision was passed. Further, the department's alleged action in disconnecting the power connection to the suit schedule property is a distinct and separate cause of action that ought to have been challenged in a different proceeding. The order of the learned Judge directing the 6th respondent/proposed defendant to give service connection to the suit property is beyond its jurisdiction, having regard to the fact that 6*^ respondent is not even a party to the suit relief that was sought^{inthesuit.Thelearned} Judge has exceeded in its jurisdiction in granting the relief sought in the subject I.A. The order under revision is therefore,^{isliabletobesetaside.}

¶57

¶58

¶59

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 05.07.2019 in I.A.No.312 of 2019 in O.S.No.376 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶60

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand

¶61

closed.

¶62

SD/-B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District (with records if any)

¶67

One CC to Sri P Ganga Rami Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of A.P.at^Amaravathi. 5. Three CD Copies

sree

HIGH COURT

DATED:26/04/2024

ORDER

CRP.No.2649 of 2019

of
m
X 2 0 JUN m
O
^ Currenl Secuon j

¶74

ALLOWING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS

D R Thulasi Prasad v. T Narasimhulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D R Thulasi Prasad v. T Narasimhulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palutla Hanumantha Rao Vs Palutla Upendra Hari Srinivasa Rao

M. Venkataramana Reddy Vs Mittapalli Rajeev

Lanka Ann Laurie Vs Kovvuri Narsi Reddy

Uppari Venkatararnudu Vs Uppari Narayana

Niranjan Rao (Died) Vs Borra Alivelu Mangamma

Pushpala Venkateswara Rao Vs Gannabattula Ramakrishna