Revision petitioners sought striking off a suit for injunction restraining grant of an electricity connection to their well. Holding the plaintiff, a co-owner without demonstrated conflicting right, was a shadow plaintiff and the suit was abuse of process, the Court struck off the plaint and allowed the revision with costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.No.496 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.07.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.496 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.4061 of 2023
1.Magudapathi
2.N.Mohanraj
3.Latha
... Petitioners
-Vs-
by its Superintending Engineer Namakkal.
3.Executive Engineer TNEB, Velur, Paramathy Velur Taluk.
... Respondents
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint in suit in O.S.No.111 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif of Paramathy by allowing the present Civil Revision Petition.
Page 1 of 7
C.R.P.No.496 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Elango For Respondents : Mr.S.Saravanakumar - for R1 Mr.S.T.Raja - for RR 2 to 6
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition seeks to strike off the suit in O.S.No.111 of 2017
on the file of the learned District Munsif at Paramathy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 7
C.R.P.No.496 of 2023
revision petitioners in O.S.No.190 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal seeking to cancel the exparte decree for specific performance obtained in O.S.No.568 of 1995. In the said suit, an application for interim injunction was filed and the injunction was also granted. Both sides concede that the said suit is still pending for consideration before the learned Subordinate Judge at Namakkal.
Page 3 of 7
C.R.P.No.496 of 2023
This Court allowed the revision and struck off the suit on 25.07.2022. It transpires in the mean time, representing the interest of the son-in-law Perumal, the motherin-law Marayee presented O.S.No.111 of 2017. Hence, to strike off this suit the present revision has arisen before this Court.
Page 4 of 7
C.R.P.No.496 of 2023
pointed out above, that suit was also struck off by this Court in revision. The said order had attained finality.
Page 5 of 7
C.R.P.No.496 of 2023
on the file of the Court. As I do not find any semblance of right in favour of Marayee, applying the judgment of Ranipet Municipality to the facts of the present case, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. It is made clear that the electricity connection granted will be subject to the result of the suit in O.S.No.190 of 2010. Costs of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid by the first respondent to the petitioner. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.07.2024
Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No
KST
To
Page 6 of 7
C.R.P.No.496 of 2023
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
KST
C.R.P. No.496 of 2023
11.07.2024
Page 7 of 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a suit for permanent injunction against grant of an electricity connection, framed as interim relief pending another suit, can be maintained.
Whether the plaintiff showed any subsisting or semblance of right over the property to sustain the suit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ranipet Municipality represented by its Commissioner -vs- M.ShamsheerkhanApplied¶11
1998 (1) CTC 66
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Magudapathi
N.Mohanraj
Latha
Marayee
TANGEDCO by its Superintending Engineer Namakkal
Executive Engineer TNEB, Velur, Paramathy Velur Taluk
V. Lakshminarayanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
