PRADYUT KUMAR CHANDRA vs MOHIT KUMAR CHANDRA

THE order dated 14.10.1993 passed in C.D.F. Case No. 1441/93 by the Ld. C.D.F. has been challenged by this appeal. THE respondent No. 1 who was the complainant in the C.D.F. Case No. 1441/ 93 applied for separate electric connection in premises No.48D, Anath Nath Deb Lane, Calcutta-37 before the C.E.S.C. Limited. Admittedly the said premises No.48D, Anath Nath Deb Lane commonly belongs to appellant as well as respondent No. 1. Admittedly there two D.C. meter connection under Consumer No. 45032053007 in name of Late Jatindra Mohan Chandra and 45032054004 in name of Prodyut Kumar Chandra are existing in the premises.

IT is also the facts that there is a partition suit being Title Suit No. 438 of 1993 pending before the Ld. Assistant District Judge, Barasat between the parties. The Ld. District Forum passed an order directing the C.E.S.C. Limited to install a separate electric meter in the name of complainant/respondent No. 1 with the help of local police. The opposite parties who are the appellants in this appeal contested the matter by filing written objection and contended that as there are two D.C. Meters in the premises in question, the whole premises are fully electrified by the existing supply arrangement. IT also contended that when the entire premises is subjudice in a partition suit in a competent Civil Court, the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain it and the complainant/respondent No.1 if at all has any cause of action he could have approached before the Ld. Assistant District Judge, Barasat where the said partition suit being Title Suit No.438 of 1993 is pending. Further by an affidavit sworn on 18.10.1993 by one Partha Pratim Chandra, son of Appellant No. 1 affirmed that the complainant/ appellant is getting electricity in his room of premises No. 48D, Anath Nath Deb Lane from the existing D.C. meter lately it was also disclosed by filing certain documents that a suit for permanent and temporary injunction has been filed by the appellant being Title Suit No. 482 of 1993 before the Ld. Munsif, 1st Court Sealdah praying inter-alia to restrain the respondents from interfering for peaceful enjoyment of the premises No. 48D, Anath Nath Deb Lane and in that title suit an ad-interim order of injunction has been passed to that effect. We, therefore, are not inclined to interfere in this matter on the ground firstly, that as per report of C.E.S.C. Ltd. the complainant/ respondent No. 1 is getting electricity from the existing D.C. meter which has been affirmed by affidavit and there is nothing to disbelieve it. On the other hand neither any cogent document has been filed by the complainant/respondent No. 1 that he is not getting electricity in his room nor any inspection was sought for to disclosing the actual state of affairs, secondly, that the complainant/respondent No. 1 could have filed an interim application in the partition suit seeking redressal of his grievances for getting separate electric connection at his room at premises No.48D, Anath Nath Deb Lane which is under subjudice in the said partition suit; thirdly, the order of adinterim injunction passed by the Ld. Munsif at Sealdah stands on the way of giving any relief to the complainant/respondent No. 1 because any order passed on that score shall come into conflict with the order of the Ld. Munsif passed in this regard restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the premises No.48D, Anath Nath Deb Lane by the appellant, so we are not inclined to enter into any conflict of authority in the matter of judiciary in view of various pending civil suit in different Civil Courts. We, therefore, allow the appeal on contest and dismiss the judgment and order dated 14.10.1993 passed in C.D.F. case No.1441 /93. The parties will bear their respective costs. Appeal allowed.