” Heard Mr. J.C. Gaur, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Choudhury, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 2,6,7 & 8. The Standing Counsel, ASEB Mr. N. Goswami, appears for the respondents 3, 4 & 5.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the Title Suit No.17/1999 before the learned Civil Judge Jr. Division, Tezpur. He applied for a perpetual injunction under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act' ) to prohibit the defendants from disconnecting electricity to the schedule house, under Holding No. 2961 of Ward No.13 within the Tezpur Municipal Board. According to the plaintiff, he was legitimately occupying a plot of land at Polo field of Tezpur town taken on lease from the owner Abdul Gafar in the year 1951 and he constructed a house on the said land with due permission from the Tezpur municipal authorities.

3. Subsequently the landowner Abdul Gafar donated his property for charitable purpose to the Dakhowali Panchayat and thereafter the plaintiff paid monthly rent to the successor owner. After residing without electricity for some years, the occupier applied for power connection to the ASEB and after formalities were completed, electricity supply was given to the suit premises on 30.1.1999. But on complaint of the Secretary of the Dakhowali Panchayat, the ASEB issued a notice on 5.3.1999 directing the plaintiff to produce a No Objection Certification from the Dakhowali Panchayat or otherwise, the electricity will be disconnected. Thus when the optimum enjoyment of his leased property with electricity was threatened, the plaintiff applied for protection under the Act by filing the suit.

4. The learned Munsiff, Tezpur observed that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit land and since the electricity connection was obtained without permission of the owner, there is no obligation on the part of the ASEB to continue with electricity supply. Moreover as no legal obligation was found to exist in plaintiff” s favour, the Court opined that the relief under Section 38 of the Act can” t be granted and on this basis, the mandatory injunction was refused and the suit was dismissed on 21.11.2006 (Annexure-D).

5. The aggrieved plaintiff then filed the Title Appeal No.25/2006 but the learned Appellate Court opined that perpetual injunction can only be granted where there is existing obligation in favour of the plaintiff and since injunction can be granted to prevent the breach of an existing obligation and noticing the absence of obligation in plaintiff” s favour, the Title Appeal No.25/2006 was found to be without merit and the same was accordingly dismissed on 23.3.2009 (Annexure-F).

6. At the outset, Ms. B. Choudhury, the learned Counsel for the respondent questions the maintainability of the revision petition by projecting that the Court conclusively determined the rights of the parties in the suit and therefore the impugned order amounts to a decree of the Court against which Appeal lies and therefore, the Revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC is not maintainable. But Mr. J.C. Gaur, the learned Counsel submits that order granting/refusing injunction is not a decree of Court and therefore Appeal doesn” t lie against such injunction refusal order and in that case, the remedy of revision is available to the aggrieved party.

7. The petitioner also argues that when the enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff is threatened by the defendants, under sub-section (3) of Section 38 of the Act, the Court may grant perpetual injunction. But the Court failed to consider the grievance of the plaintiff vis-أ -vis sub-section (3) of Section 38 of the Act and this resulted in a jurisdictional error.

8. The Standing Counsel, ASEB Mr. N. Goswami appearing for the respondents 3,4 & 5 on the other hand submits that the ASEB issued electricity disconnection notice only because of the complaint made by the defendants Dakhowali Panchayat and he further subm