Venkatasami v. Assistant Electrical Engineer-I

ORDER Challenging the impugned Order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.327 of 2025 in O.S.No.205 of 2017 dated 23.01.2026, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff.

¶2The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction against the first defendant not to disconnect the electricity connection used by the plaintiff in the suit property. Pending suit, the plaintiff filed an application for issuance of witness summon to the Tahsildar, Thirukoilur and for that purpose he wants to reopen the evidence on the side of the plaintiff. The trial Court, considering the submissions on either side, dismissed the application on the ground that the reason stated by the petitioner for examination of the Government Official is not acceptable and that the petitioner cannot compel other party to give evidence as a matter of right and that the applications have been filed by the petitioner at the stage of arguments. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. Page3 of 5

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court ought to have given an opportunity to produce the documents by issuance of summons to the Tahsildhar and the electricity service connection cannot be disconnected in the subject matter of the suit as the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. Hence, prayed to set aside the Order of the trial Court.

¶4A perusal of records reveal that suit has been filed against the Government officials and the prayer in the suit is not to disconnect the electricity connection of the plaintiff in the suit property. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that to prove the nature of the property and to prove right and title of the petitioner, it is necessary for issuance of summons to the Tahsildhar. Out of the six defendants arrayed in the suit, five defendants are Government Officials and the Tahsildhar is also arrayed as a defendant. Therefore, in order to give an opportunity to the petitioner to establish his case, summoning the Thasildar, who is arrayed as a defendant, to depose before the Court would not cause any prejudice to the defendants. Hence, this Court is inclined to allow this Civil Revision Petition.

¶5With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the Order of the trial Court in I.A.No.327 of 20225 in O.S.No.205 of 2017 dated Page4 of 5

23.01,2026 is set aside. No costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

23.03.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order vrc To The Principal District Munsif, Thirukoilur. Page5 of 5

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J. vrc

23.03.2026

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.03.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CRP No. 1712 of 2026 & CMP.No.7866 of 2026 Venkatasami, S/o.Kannan Nayudu Union Office Road, Mayana Paadhai Street, Kasapa Tirukoilur, Thirukoilur Taluk, Kallakurichi District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Assistant Electrical Engineer – I, Operation & Maintenance City, Tirukoilur. 2. The Assistant Electrical Engineer – II, Operation & Maintenance City, Tirukoilur. 3. The Executive Engineer, Operation & Maintenance City, Tirukoilur. 4. The Revenue Taluk Officer, Tirukoilur Taluk, Kallakurichi District. 5. K.R.Sankar, S/o.Rajamanikkam, Keezhathazhanur, Tirukoilur Taluk. 6. The District Collector, Kallakurich District. ..Respondent(s) Page2 of 5 Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the impugned Fair and Decreetal Order in I.A.No.327 of 2025 in O.S.No.205 of 2017 dated 23.01.2026 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirukoilur and thereby allow the Civil Revision Petition. For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Suresh