Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This mandamus appeal is directed against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 13th December, 2017 in W.P. 10685(W) of 2012 filed by the writ petitioner/respondent no.3. The writ petitioner applied for supply of electricity connection to her residence before the C.E.S.C. authority. Such supply of electricity cannot be effected unless such electricity line is drawn through a passage belonging to the appellant. The writ petitioner/respondent no.3 claims easementary right over the said passage. Such claim of the writ petitioner/respondent no.3 is disputed by the appellant.
(2.) The writ petitioner/respondent no.3 had already approached the civil court seeking declaration of her easementary right over the disputed passage. The said suit was registered as Title Suit No. 172 of 2011. There is another suit filed by one Manorama Paul against her co-sharers including the appellant herein seeking partition of the joint properties including the disputed passage. The writ petitioner/respondent no.3 is not added as a party in the said suit. However, subsequently the husband of the writ petitioner/respondent no.3 was added as a party in the said suit as they claimed easementary right over the disputed passage.
(3.) The writ petitioner/respondent no.3 was initially successful in obtaining an order of injunction in her suit being Title Suit No.172 of 2011. By virtue of the said order of injunction, the appellant was restrained from obstructing the writ petitioner/respondent no.3 from obtaining the supply of electricity connection in her premises through the said disputed passage. Subsequently an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the appellant in the said suit. The said application was, however, rejected by the learned Trial Judge. Being aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the appellant preferred an appeal before the learned first Appellate Court. The said appeal was allowed and the interim order of injunction which was passed by the learned Trial Judge was set aside. The writ petitioner/respondent no.3 challenged the said order in revision before this Hon'ble Court. The said revisional application has also been dismissed without interfering with the order which was passed by the learned first Appellate Court.;