High Court refrains from interfering in property disputes pending in civil courts via writ jurisdiction.

..Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to cancel the electricity service connection bearing No.529 given to the 4th respondent to a property an extent of 82 cents comprised in Survey No.96/3A dry land in Kampattu Village, Ulundurpettai Taluk, Kallakuruchi District.

For Petitioner: Ms.S.Haripriya For Respondents: Ms.Daniel Mary (R1 to R3)

Standing Counsel Mr.G.Thiyagarajan (R4)

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to cancel the electricity service connection bearing No.529 given to the 4th respondent to a property to an extent of 82 cents comprised in Survey No.96/3A dry land in Kampattu Village, Ulundurpettai Taluk, Kallakuruchi District. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the subject property and the subject property was purchased by his father Mr.Muthulingam and after the demise of his father, the petitioner and his brother, the 4^th respondent herein is in possession and enjoyment of the property. While so, the 4^th respondent herein without the knowledge of the petitioner obtained the release deed from his sisters viz., Mrs.Sivagangai and Mrs. Malar through Document No.887/2019 on the file of SRO, Ulundurpettai and after obtaining the same, the 4^th respondent filed the partition suit before the District Court, Villupuram in O.S.No.92 of 2019 (renumbered as O.S.No.12/2024) and the same is pending. That apart, without the knowledge of the petitioner, the 4^th respondent also applied for electricity connection before the 2nd and 3^rd respondents and the 3^rd respondent also attempted to give electricity connection to the 4^th respondent, despite objections being filed by the petitioner . Therefore, the petitioner filed a suit before the District Munsif, Ulundurpettai, against the respondents 3 and 4 in O.S.No.167 of 2020 for bare injunction, despite the same, the 3^rd respondent has given the electricity connection to the 4^th respondent. Hence, this petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the request of the petitioner will be considered subject to the outcome of the partition suit as well as the suit for bare injunction.

4. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

5. In the case on hand, admittedly the 4^th respondent filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.92/2019 on the file of District Court, Villupuram and the same is pending. Thereafter, since the 3^rd respondent provided electricity connection to the 4^th respondent, despite objections submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner also filed a suit in O.S.No.167 of 2020 against the respondents 3 and 4 for bare injunction and the same is also pending.

6. The 3^rd respondent had provided the electricity connection to the 4^th respondent land where the agricultural activities are being carried on, for which electricity is necessary. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to issue the direction sought for by the petitioner. That apart, already as stated above, since the suit filed by the 4^th respondent for the civil suits filed by the 4^th respondent and the petitioner seeking partition and bare injunction are also pending, the parties can agitate their rights before the concerned civil courts.

6. In such view of the matter, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. If any order is passed in favour of the petitioner in the aforesaid suits, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application before the 3^rd respondent, seeking to cancel the electricity connection given to the 4^th respondent and it is open to the

3^rd respondent to act on the same, in accordance with la