Mahabir Prasad Agarwalla Vs Ee (Elect.) Tpnodl, Baripada

Heard learned counsel for the TPNODL-Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5. Perused the pleadings of the parties as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶18

The present writ application has been filed with a prayer by challenging the decision taken by the Opposite Parties to provide new electricity connection to both the Petitioner as well as the Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 under Annexure-5, further a prayer has been made

¶19

Page 1 of 4.

¶20

for a direction to the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 to provide such new electricity connection only to the Petitioner over the land in question by setting aside the impugned order dated 02.09.2023 under Annexure-5 to the writ application.

¶21

On perusal of the record it appears that there was a dispute over the land in question between the Petitioner and the privateOpposite Party Nos.3 to 5. As a result, the Petitioner, as plaintiff, filed T.S. No.103 of 1994. The suit was filed with a prayer for specific performance of contract of sale, the learned trial court while rejecting the plaintiff’s prayer for specific performance of contract, decreed the suit in part directing refund of earnest money of Rs.70,000/- with pendente lite and future interest @ 6 per cent per annum from the defendants who are private-Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 to the present writ application. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in T.S. No.103 of 1994, the plaintiff-Petitioner preferred a First Appeal before this Court which was registered as a F.A. No.185 of 1997. A learned Single Judge Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 25.10.2013 allowed the appeal and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baripada in T.S. No.103 of 1994 was set aside and the plaintiff-Petitioner’s suit for specific performance of contract was decreed and the defendants were directed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-Petitioner within a period of two months from the date of the judgment with a further direction to the plaintiff-petitioner to pay the balance consideration amount of Rs.80,000/- to the defendant nos.1 to 8 and Rs.4,20,000/- to the defendant nos.9 to 11. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court in the First Appeal No.185 of 1997, Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme

¶22

Page 2 of 4.

¶23

Court bearing Civil Appeal No.613 of 2017. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 26.09.2024 allowed the Civil Appeal and accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2013 passed by this Court was set aside and that of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baripada was restored. Further, the appellant-Opposite Party nos.3 to 5 to the present writ application were directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the plaintiff-petitioner within a period of two months from the date of order dated 26.09.2024. 6. Learned counsel for the private-Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 contended that after disposal of the Civil Appeal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 have already paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of a Demand Draft drawn in favour of the Registrar, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, as has been directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide their order dated 24.01.2025. A receipt with the aforesaid effect was placed on record in course of hearing which reveals that the Petitioner vide Bank Draft No.714407 dated 28.01.2025, drawn on State Bank of India, has already deposited the aforesaid sum of Rs.10,00,000/- before the Registrar, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 contended that the disputed land in question which belongs to the Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 submitted that the electricity connection which is the subject matter of dispute in the present writ application can only be given to the private-Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 and the prayer of the Petitioner for such new electricity connection be rejected by the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2.

¶24

Page 3 of 4.

¶25

Mr.L.K.Maharana, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 on the other hand in support of such contention made by the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 made a categorical statement before this Court that they have been provided with new electricity connection. So far the claim of the present Petitioner is concerned, the same is required to be decided in view of the development that has taken place subsequently.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful examination of the pleading from both sides, further keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.613 of 2017 decided on 26.09.2024 touching upon the subject matter of dispute, this Court deems it proper to direct the Petitioner as well as the private-Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 to appear before the Opposite Party No.1. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.1 shall consider their claim and contentions thereof, after providing them an opportunity of hearing and on a careful scrutiny of the records to be placed by both sides before him. The claim of both sides be considered and finalised by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of communication of a certified copy of the order by either of the parties.

¶27

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶28

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

¶29

Anil

¶30

Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 4. Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Feb-2025 15:26:22

Mahabir Prasad Agarwalla v. Ee (Elect.) Tpnodl, Baripada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahabir Prasad Agarwalla v. Ee (Elect.) Tpnodl, Baripada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dasarath Kisan Vs State of Odisha

Rasmita Khilar Vs State of Odisha

Sanyasi Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Srikanta Behera Vs Kabindra Kumar Sahoo, O.a.S.(Ss)

Chrds Integrated Model School Vs Shalini Pandit, Commnr.Cum Secy, S and Me

Niranjan Nayak Vs State of Odisha