Dinu Majhi vs Nemai Shaw

The petitioner filed a suit for declaration of his tenancy rights and consequential reliefs, inter alia, including injunction restraining the landlord/opposite

party from disturbing the petitioner’s peaceful use and enjoyment of electricity supplied from the meter installed at the suit property in his name.

By the order impugned dated July 14, 2016, the trial court passed an order of injunction, thereby restraining the defendant/opposite party and his men

and agents from forcibly ousting the plaintiff from the schedule property and from creating any hindrance or interference in the plaintiff’s peaceful

use and enjoyment of electricity supplied from the meter installed in his name in any manner whatsoever till the disposal of the suit.

Subsequently, complaining of violation of such interim order by the plaintiff/opposite party by uprooting the electric wiring of the petitioner in the suit

property, the petitioner took out an application for implementation of the order of injunction by police help.

By virtue of the impugned order dated December 1, 2017, the said application forimplementation was rejected in a cryptic fashion by holding that there

is no urgency to direct police help. The petitioner submits that nothing in the application for implementation has been adverted to by the trial court

while passing the impugned order in a cursory manner.

There appears to be justification in the contention of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to serve a copy of C.O. 529 of 2018 on the

opposite party indicating that the matter will appear for hearing as a “Listed Motion†in the monthly list of June, 2018, when the petitioner will file

an affidavit of service.

Leave is given to the petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit annexing necessary documents on the next date of hearing. The petitioner will serve

an advance copy of such supplementary affidavit on the opposite party along with the revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India.