CRP 207/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The petitioner who is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 515/2007, by the present application has sought to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Ar ticle 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 10.07.08 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup, Guwahati in Misc. Appe al No. 9/08 filed by the present respondents whereby and whereunder the learned Civil Judge by allowing the appeal has set aside the order of injunction dated 09.04.08 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati in Misc. (J) Cas e No. 597/07 arising out of the said Title Suit. I have heard Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant/ petition er and Mr. G. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 8. I have also heard Mr. Surana, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 9 to 14. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment and order dated 10.07.08 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamru p, Guwahati in Misc. Appeal No. 9/08 is contrary to the principles laid down for granting or refusing injunction in a suit pending. According to Mr. Deka, the order of injunction which has been passed by the learned Trial Court has been i nterfered with by the learned Appellate Court in the said appeal even without di scussing the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on the contr ary arrived at the findings that the petitioner has admitted that the construct ion of the flats in question have already been completed and possession of the s ame has been handed over to the present respondents No. 1 to 8. Mr. Deka further submits that the Appellate Court should be slow in interfering with the order of injunction allowing or refusing the same passed by the Trial Court. But in the instant case, the order of injunction has been set aside in a most mechanic al manner, submits the learned Counsel. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 8, per contra, supporting the decision of the Appellate Court in setting aside the order of in junction passed by the learned Trial Court, has submitted that though in the pla int filed in the Title Suit No. 515/2007, the plaintiff/ petitioner did not ment ion anything relating to the completion of construction of the flats in questio n and handing over the possession of the same to the defendants, namely the pres ent respondents No. 1 to 8, in the earlier suit being Title Suit No. 26/2005 f iled by the petitioner herein, it has stated about the completion of such constr uction and handing over possession of the same. It has further been contended th at the plaint filed in Title Suit No. 26/05 was produced before the learned Appe llate Court and the learned Appellate Court taking into account all the averment s made in the said Title Suit, has recorded the findings that the plaintiff admi tted completion of construction and also handing over possession of the flats in question to the present respondents No. 1 to 8. Learned Appellate Court therefo re, according to Mr. Mishra, has rightly set aside the order of injunction issue d. Mr. Mishra has drawn my attention to the averments made in the plaint filed b y the present petitioner No. 1 in Title Suit No. 26/05 which has been annexed as Annexure-A to the affidavit in opposition. Mr. Surana, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 9 to 14 ha s contended that the matter of providing electric connection to any flat or hous e is governed by a set of Regulation, namely the Assam Electricity Regulatory C ommission (Distribution ), Regulation, 2004 and the terms and conditions for sup ply of electricity formulated in that regard. It has further been submitted that Electricity Board shall abide by whatever order is passed by the Court as the y are bound to abide by such order. It is an admitted position of fact that the present petitioner, Purbanch al Housing Promotion Development and Finance Co-operative Societies Ltd. represe nted by its Chairman and Secretary, instituted Title Suit No. 26/2005 in the Cou rt of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 1, Guwahati (now Civil Judge), praying for decree declaring that the notice dated 19.01.05 is illegal, void, capricious, ma licious, inoperative and not binding and also prayed for permanent injunction. The said notice dated 19.01.05 was issued canceling the agreement entered into b etween the parties on 04.08.95. In the plaint filed in the said suit, the presen t petitioner in paragraphs No. 24, 27 and 30 has made categorical statement tha t 32 number of flats have been handed over the defendants (respondents No. 1to 8 herein) by executing various deeds etc. after completion of construction. The present suit being Title Suit No. 515/07 relates to 9 number of flats out of th ose 32 number of flats. The petitioner, for the reasons known to it, has not sta ted anything relating to completion of construction and handing over the possess ion of those flats to the respondents No. 1 to 8 herein, in the plaint filed in Title Suit No. 515/07. Learned Trial Court vide order dated 09.04.08 on the basis of the applic ation filed by the present petitioner in Misc. (J) Case No. 597/07 under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, restrained the Electricity Board from giving elec tricity connection to the opposite parties in the disputed flats till disposal of the suit. It appears from the said order dated 09.04.08 that though the Trial Court was satisfied with the strong case to go for trial, such order was passed without further considering as to whether granting or refusal of injunction wo uld cause irreparable loss to either parties and also the question of balance of convenience, which are the principles of law required to be considered by the C ourt while granting or refusing injunction. The judgment and order dated 10.07.08 passed by the Appellate Court, impugned in the present petition, is equally not at all satisfactory as it has not discussed what are the submissions of the learned counsel for the pa rties, but at the same time has observed that it is an admitted position that th e construction of the flats has been completed and possession of the same were h anded over to the respondents No. 1 to 8. Even then, I am not inclined to interf ere with the said impugned judgment and order dated 10.07.08 while exercising t he jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which requires to be exercised sparingly and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and w hen there is miscarriage of justice, as it is evident from the averments made in the plaint filed in Title Suit No. 26/05 by the present petitioner that constru ction of the flats have already been completed and the possession of the same we re handed over to the defendant Nos. 1 to 8 therein (respondents No. 1 to 8) her ein) by executing different deeds etc. From such averments, it is very much clea r that the possession of the flats were handed over sometime in the year 2005. L earned Appellate Court must have taken into consideration such averments while a llowing the appeal, as that the records were admittedly before it. Apart from th at, providing electricity connection is no longer luxury and it becomes bare min imum requirement for living a decent life. There being admission by the petition er in Title Suit No. 26/05 that the construction of the flats had been competed and the same were handed over to the respondents No. 1 to 8, I am not inclined t o interfere with the judgment and order impugned in this proceeding while exerci sing the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the said judgment does not create any miscarriage of justice or cannot be terms as abuse the process of the Court. The petitioner is devoid of any merit, hence, it is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the observations/ findings made in this order shall not be taken into consideration by the Court below while finally deciding the suit, as the same are limited for the purpose of the prayer for injunction only. No cost.