JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. The instant revisional application as filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of the Judgment and Order dated April 13, 2022 as passed by Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Third Court, Sadar, Paschim Medinipur in Misc. Appeal No. 35 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the said Court by the impugned Judgment allowed the said Misc. Appeal No. 35 of 2014 thereby setting aside the order No. 23 dated January 31, 2012 as passed by Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Danton, Paschim Medinipur as passed in Title Suit No. 53 of 2012 and thus rejected the petition as filed Procedure by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1& 2 of the Code of Civil on contest.

2. The plaintiff felt aggrieved and thus preferred the instant revisional application.

3. For effective disposal of the instant revisional application, the brief facts leading to passing of the impugned judgment is required to be discussed in a nutshell. It is the plaint case that the plaintiff is the rayat of the suit property over which he intends to construct his house by converting the suit property to a bastu land. It is the further case of the plaintiff that on 19.03.2012 the defendants and their men and agents came over the suit property and erected an electric poll over the suit property without the consent of the plaintiff with an intention to take High Tension Line over the suit property. It is further case of the plaintiff that in the event the defendants are successful in taking high tension line over the suit property, he would not be in a position to construct his house over the suit property and thus finding no other alternative, the plaintiff has filed the said suit against the defendants for permanent injunction and for other ancillary reliefs.

4. Based on the self-same facts, the plaintiff before the Trial Court filed an application for temporary injunction. The defendants of the said suit filed their written objection as against the said injunction application. Learned trial court after hearing both the sides was pleased to allow the said injunction application as filed by the plaintiff on contest by its order No. 23 dated January 31, 2012.

5. Feeling aggrieved with the said order dated January 31, 2012, the defendants of the said suit preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court which was allowed by the impugned judgment.

6. Mr. Podder, Learned Advocate for the plaintiff/revisionist in course of his submission draws attention of this Court to the impugned judgment. It is submitted by him that Learned First Appellate while passing the impugned judgment misconstrued the provisions of Section-164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 herein after referred to as the said Act of 2003 vis-a-vis Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 herein after referred to as the ‘said Act of 1885’. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the plaintiff/revisionist that learned First Appellate Court misinterpreted the word ‘transmission’ as available in section 164 of the said Act of 2003 and thus wrongly hold that Rule 3 of Works of Licensing Rules 2006 is not applicable in the present lis. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate for the plaintiff / revisionist that since the defendants /opposite parties being the licensee are engaged in the distribution of electricity and not transmission of the same, Learned First Appellate Court ought to have hold the defendants must have to obtain necessary permission from District Magistrate for carrying out the work of electric supply line over the suit property in view of the provision of Rule 3 of Works of Licensing Rules 2006. It is submitted that is a fit case for allowing the instant revisional application by setting aside the impugned judgment as passed by the learned first appellate Court.

7. Per contra, Mr. Koley, Learned Advocate for the defendants/ opposite parties also placed his reliance upon section 164 of the said Act of the said Act, 2003 and section 1