IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 33229 of 2007(E) -------------------------------------- AS.49/2007 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM OS.276/2000 OF MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT,PATTAMBI .................................................. PETITIONER: ------------------ VENUGOPALAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.PULLANCHIYIL JANAKI AMMA, KOODALLUR AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B, SHORANUR. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B, THRITHALA. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B, PADINJARANGADI. 4. SUBHADRA AMMA, AGED 69 YEARS, D/O.PULLANCHIYIL JANAKI AMMA, KOODALLUR AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. 5. THE SECRETARY, K.S.E.B, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B R4 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO: 33229/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DT. 28/2/2007 IN OS NO. 76/99 AND OS NO. 276/00 OF THE MUNSIFF MAGI.COURT, PATTAMBI. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE IA NO. 968/2007 DT. 23/5/2007 IN AS NO. 49/07 FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE IA NO. 1568/2007 IN IA NO. 968/2007 FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE COUNTER DT. 10/08/2007 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3 IN IA NO. 1568/2007. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE R4 IN IA NO. 1568/07. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 23/08/2007 BY THE SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM IN IA NO. 1568/2007 IN IA NO. 968/2007 IN AS NO. 49/2007. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 23/08/2007 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM IN IA NO. 968/2007 IN AS NO. 49/07. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. True copy tga M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 33229 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Sub Court, Ottappalam in I.A.1568/07 in A.S.49/07. It was an application filed by the defeated plaintiff to disconnect the electric supply granted in favour of the defendants in the suit. It is seen that two suits were filed as O.S.276/00 and O.S.76/99 and the trial court after a full fledged trial had granted a decree in the suit filed by the defendants herein and dismissed the suit filed by the present writ petitioner. The grievance of the writ petitioner is to the effect that he has preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree and moved application for injunction along with the appeal and notice was issued and in that process KSEB has granted connection and therefore it has resulted in gross injustice to him. Therefore he prays for restoration of the matter into the old position, or in other words to disconnect the electric W.P.C 33229 OF 2007 -:2:- connection. The learned counsel had also cited before me two decisions of the Travancore-Cochin High Court reported in P.J. Joseph v. Asst. Excise Commissioner (AIR 1953 146) and Ouseph & Ouseph v. Minister of Food (AIR 1951 Travancore-Cochin 226). In the 1953 decision the High Court held that when a notice is issued respondents should not, after getting the notice do the very thing sought to be prevented. Similarly in the other decision also the Court held that there shall not be an attempt to circumvent the proceedings in Court. It was with respect to an original petition pending before the Court. Now we are in a situation where a competent civil Court after a full fledged trial has granted a right in favour of a party and the other side has preferred an appeal. He did not get an order of injunction. But a caveat was filed which was posted for counter. A prima facie case is a matter which the Court has to consider. Here, by virtue of a decree of a competent civil Court a prima facie case is seen established. Therefore it cannot be compared with a case where a party initially moved the Court W.P.C 33229 OF 2007 -:3:- for relief and before serving notice altering the possession of the property. Here what is granted is an electricity connection whereas the suit is with respect to the right and title over the property. If ultimately the appeal results in favour of the present writ petitioner he will be entitled to the benefit of electric connection and therefore it cannot cause him any prejudice. So at this stage I do not find to interfere with the decision rendered by the Subordinate Judge. Since it is a matter relating to water and well and as summer is to come it is only just and proper to direct the Subordinate Judge, Ottappalam to dispose of the appeals in these matters before the Court closes for summer holidays. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-