Shivakant Prasad, J. - (1.) Let the reports filed by the respondents be kept with the record. Affidavit of service filed shows the issuance of notice upon the private respondent no.5.
(2.) Heard the learned advocates for the parties.
(3.) In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of Mandamus directing the respondents and the men and agents restraining from entering into the premises of the petitioner or for installing any meter thereat in favour of the respondent no.4 being premises no. 1039, Kalikapur, P.S. Purba Jadavpur, Kolkata-700099 and has prayed for an order of injunction from restraining the respondents in terms thereof from entering into the premises of the petitioner for the said purpose. The petitioner is the owner of the land at the said premises by purchase and is in possession which prima facie has been ascertained by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, 1st Court, Alipur, 24 Parganas, South. After the order no.42 dated 21.02,2017 passed in Title Suit no.389 of 2013 filed by the petitioner against the private respondent no.4 and others and on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with 151 of the C.P.C. The learned Judge has made a categorical observation prima facie to this fact that the plaintiff-petitioner got the possession of the property after his purchase, whereas the defendant no.3 also filed the Title Suit no.8 of 2004 claiming the title of the defendant no.2 over the suit property. The plaintiff has appeared in that suit and wanted to be a party but suddenly the suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff of that suit i.e the present defendant no.2. Subsequently, the plaintiff enquired she sold the suit property to the defendant no.2. But the plaintiff claimed that he is a bona fide purchaser and is presently in possession of the suit property and now the defendants are trying to create disturbance in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. In such circumstances, the plaintiff prayed for injunction and the learned Trial Court passed an order directing the respondent no.2 restraining them from creating any disturbance in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and/or oust the plaintiff from the suit property till the disposal of the suit. At the same time, the learned Court below directed the plaintiff not to change the nature and character of the suit property or alienating the property till the disposal of the suit. On an enquiry for the new connection by the C.E.S.C. authority, the contentions of the petitioner is that the respondent no.4 is claiming the ownership of the premises no. 597, Kalikapur Purbalok Abasan Samity, P.S. Purba Jadavpur, Kolkata70099. But there is no dispute to the premises no. 1039, Kalikapur Purba Jadavpur. However, the private respondent is fraudulently is seeking to identify the property of the petitioner no. 1039 as of the property being premises no.597. Therefore, there is disputed the trial which can only be decided by the Civil Court at the trial. According to the evidence to be adduced by the parties to the suit. The private respondent no.4 filed a writ petition being W.P.3433(w) of 2013 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 22.11.2013 against the C.E.S.C. Limited praying for a direction upon the C.E.S.E Ltd. to instal meter and provide electricity connection in her name. The matter was heard on 12.12. 2013. But the matter is still pending for disposal. In the said writ application, the private respondent no.4 has prayed for a direction upon the C.E.S.C. authorities to effect a new connection and supply of electric meter connection in the name of the petitioner at premises no.597 of the Kalikapur Purbalok Mukundapur, Kolkata and further direction upon the C.E.S.C. authority to remove the meter installed in the premises of the petitioner in the name of respondent no.4 immediately. The said respondent no.4 of that writ petition is the present petitioner. The respondent no.1 to 3 held inspection as of process for providing electric connection while installation of meter in favour of the private repondent. But the meter cannot be installed for the reason that access is not available at the premises no.597, Purbalok Mukundupur, Kolkata-700099. Because of this enquiry report, the private respondent preferred the writ application which is still pending. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 that the applicant has to satisfy three things, firstly that the title of the petitioner is free from encumbrances. Secondly, he should be in possession and thirdly, there has to be free access to the premises. In addition to these formalities there are other requirements as under the Rule. None of the three ingredients have been complied by the respondent no.4. Therefore, it was not possible on the part of the C.E.S.C. authority to provide electric meter at the premises as claimed by the private respondent no.4. It is axiomatic from the prayer as made in the writ application by the private respondent no.4 that the petitioner wants removal of the meter installed at the premises of the present petitioner in his name at the premises no. 1039, Kalikapur. Therefore, it appears that the private respondent no.4 is claiming and setting her case of her ownership at the premises held by the present petitioner by pointing out that it is a selfsame premises.;