IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.03-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4860 OF 2004 Between: Namburi Sarojini and five others. --- Appellants/ Defendants. AND Namburi Rose Victor and three others. --- Respondents/ Plaintiffs. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4860 OF 2004 JUDGEMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C. against order dated 18-11-2004, passed in I.A. No.1150 of 2004 in O.S.No.137 of 2001, on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Machilipatnam, Krishna District (Hereinafter referred as ‘the learned Senior Civil Judge’) I.A. No.1150 of 2004 was filed under Order 39 Rules1 and 2 and Sections 94 and 151 of C.P.C. seeking to direct the Respondents therein to restore disconnected service connection No.3860 to the schedule property. 2. The appellants are the petitioners and the respondents are the respondents in the Interlocutory Application No.1150 of 2004. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the lower Court. 3. The case of the petitioners is as follows : The first petitioner has been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as of right and the second respondent tried to dispossess her from the property and therefore she filed O.S. No.58 of 2000 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Jduge, Machilipatnam, and obtained decree of permanent injunction. Further, at the instance of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 the third respondent disconnected the service connection of the building without any manner of right. Further, she has been paying necessary electricity bills regularly. 4. The Respondent No.1 filed counter to the effect that they were not responsible for the disconnection of the service connection and the petitioners got no right over the property and their claim should be dismissed. On the other hand, the third respondent filed counter claiming that the service connection was disconnected on 30-09-2004 at the request of the registered consumer (that is the second respondent) and it was released to the house bearing door No.17/317 of Edepalli, Machiipatnam. It is also claimed that originally it was in the name of the first respondent. Further his claim is that the service connection was disconnected after verifying a Gift Deed of the property. 5. Nobody was examined and no documents were marked on behalf of both sides. Ultimately the lower Court dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioners failed to place any evidence in support of their claim the restoration of connection. Hence aggrieved by the same the present appeal has been preferred. 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that it is to be very much emphasized that the petitioners have been in the possession of the property and the first of them obtained a decree of permanent injunction in the previous suit filed by her which proves that she got absolute rights over the property and therefore it also proves that she got right of restoration of the service connection. 7. Therefore, it is to be seen as to whether the petitioners got any right to seek the restoration of the connection and the lower Court properly considered and decided the matter and its order is sustainable or not? 8. The petitioner has to establish that they got prima-facie case and balance of convenience and unless the relief prayed for is granted they will suffer irreparable loss. It is also an established principle of law that it is enough if the first ingredient and one of the remaining two ingredients are established to grant the relief. But surprisingly no documents were filed by the petitioners to substantiate her claim. No doubt, admittedly the petitioners have been in the possession of the property which does not mean that they have been in the possession of the property as of right unless relevant documents are filed for necessary consideration. Emphasizingly according to the third respondent at the instance of second respondent who happened to be the owner of the property the service connection was disconnected. The position of the first petitioner or all the petitioners of the house may be permissive in nature whereas, unless they show that she or they got right to be in the possession of the property and also got right to seek for the restoration of the property the relief prayed for can not be granted. Ultimately the claim of the petitioners deserves to be dismissed. The lower Court examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and there is no reason to interfere with the same. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 03-03-2011. Dsh.