The plaintiff was entitled to the agricultural electricity service connection on a priority basis, and the defendants' failure to provide the connection despite court orders was not in accordance with the evidence.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court in A.S.No.11 of 2000 dated 30.03.2001 in confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in O.S.No.47 of 1998 dated 28.04.1999 in decreeing the suit.

2. The appellants herein were the defendants and the respondent herein was the plaintiff before the trial court.

3. The case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint would be as follows:-

On 15.03.1982, the plaintiff applied to the defendants/ Electricity Department for agricultural electric service connection to his land in S.No.208/2A in Mangavaram Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk. Acknowledging the same, the defendants department sent a communication dated 16.03.1982 to the plaintiff calling him to furnish details regarding the ownership of the land of the plaintiff. The defendants did not effect any agricultural electric service connection despite the plaintiff produced all the relevant records i.e., ownership certificate from the Tahsildar and Chitta Adangal extract in relation to the land belonging to him and fulfilled all the formalities required by the defendants for the purpose of effecting agricultural service connection. The plaintiff had sought for effecting electricity service connection on priority basis on several occasion, but the plaintiff was driven pillar to post without any favourable result, even though many subsequent applicants had been granted electric service connection for the reason best known. Hence, the plaintiff issued a notice dated 08.08.1997, which was duly acknowledged by the defendants. But the defendants did not sent any reply notice and had been been promising the plaintiff to give service connection. But so far, they have not done so. Therefore, the plaintiff is forced to approach this Court seeking mandatory injunction.

4. The objections of the defendants filed by the first defendant and adopted by other defendants in their written statement would be as follows:-

The plaintiff has approached the defendants department during 1996 for an agricultural service and the same was registered as PR.No.27/96-97 dated 06.07.1996. As the plaintiff has not paid initial amount of Rs.500/-within the specified time, he has lost the priority to avail the supply under self-finance scheme. However, the plaintiff's case will be considered under normal category according to priority as and when his turn comes, as services have been effected to applicants, who have been registered up to 30.10.1990. If the plaintiff had given application as alleged during 1982, action would have been taken for effecting supply, if he was eligible, since services have been given for the applicants, who have been registered up to 30.10.1990. The allegation of the plaintiff that he is the earliest applicant and later applicants have been considered is not true. The service will be given to the plaintiff as and when his priority comes. The plaintiff has not complied with any formalities as stated by him to avail supply. Now, his case is pending under normal category and his application will be considered in the order of priority and subject to feasibility for providing new service as requested by him. Hence, the suit may be dismissed with costs.

5. The trial court has framed necessary issues on the above pleadings and had come to the conclusion of decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff and directed the defendants to give electricity connection within a period of one month. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the defendants have preferred an appeal before the first appellate court in A.S.No.11 of 2000. The first appellate court heard both sides and had come to the conclusion of dismissing the appeal and thereby, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was confirmed.

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court, the defendants have preferred the present appeal before this Court.

7. On admission of the appe