ML 33 September 2026 15.09.2026 Court. No. 12 Sandip MAT 1192 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Nityanand Lal Das & Anr. VS The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Tapas Kumar Manna … for the Appellants. Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee … for the CESC. Mr. Subhas Jana, Ms. Mahua Palit … for the Respondent No. 3. Re : CAN 1 of 2026 1. CAN 1 of 2026 is an application for condonation of delay 217 days in filing the appeal. 2. Upon perusal of the averments made in paragraph 3 of the application, we are satisfied that the delay has been properly explained. 3. The delay is condoned. 4. CAN 1 of 2026 is allowed. 5. The appeal is regularised. Re : MAT 1192 of 2026 6. The appeal arises out of an order dated November 17, 2025 passed in W.P.A. 14749 of 2024. 7. By the order impugned, the learned Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that on the selfsame prayers a counter claim had been filed in the civil suit, which is pending before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 4th Court at Alipore, District – 24 Parganas (South) being Title Suit No. 60 of 2012. The suit was instituted by one Surya Kumar Mondal, the respondent no. 3 who is represented by the learned advocate. Prayer (d) of the counter claim is quoted below :- “(d) For a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant of counter claim to remove the electric meter and letter box from the western side boundary wall of premises no 10/1A, Bakul Bagan Row, Kolkata-25, failing compliance with the process server may be directed to remove the same with the help of CESC men and agents.” 8. The prayers in the writ petition are quoted below :- “In the above circumstances, the petitioners humbly pray that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to issue the following writs :- i) Issuance of writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 to remove the said 5 meters of the respondent No. 3 to 7 from the western side wall of the petitioner’s house 10/1A, Bakul Bagan Row, Kolkata – 700025. ii) Issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 9 to remain present in the spot of meter board position and assist the respondents No. 3 and 8 at the time of removing the meters for removing any disturbance or obstruction. iii) Issuance of writ of certiorari for transmission of connected records to this Hon’ble Court. iv) Rule NISI. And such other writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions as your Lordships may deem fit and proper.” 2 9. Under such circumstances, it is evident that the prayer for removal of the meters installed by the CESC Limited from the existing position to any other position is already pending adjudication in the suit. 10. We find that the learned civil Judge, Junior Division rejected the application for temporary injunction, inter alia, holding as follows :- “Having considered the materials on record and the documents it appears that there is one common passage between property of the plaintiff and the property of the defendant Plaintiff alleged that defendant is trying to remove electric meter box of the plaintiff from the wall of common passage. On the other hand defendant contended that electric meter box of the plaintiff is lying on the wall of the defendant. Whether electric meter box of the plaintiff is lying on the wall of the common passage or on the wall of the defendant is matter of adjudication. It is not the case of the plaintiff that defendant has denied his access to his meter box. The matter of shifting of the electric meter box of the plaintiff does not depend upon the desire of the defendant, rather it is matter between licensor and licensee i.e. CESC Ltd. and the plaintiff. So plaintiff failed to make out prima facie case.” 11. The plaintiff, who is the respondent No. 3 herein, had prayed for an injunction restraining the CESC authorities from trying to remove the meters at the instance of the defendant in the suit. Such prayer was rejected and the learned Trial Judge held that the matter of shifting of the electric meter box of the plaintiff did not depend upon the desire of the defendant, rather it was a matter between the 3 CESC Ltd. and the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff failed to make out a, prima facie, case that the CESE authorities were trying to remove the meters. The respondent no. 3 preferred an appeal and the appeal was ultimately dismissed for non-prosecution. The appellants who are the defendants in the suit approached this Court for direction upon the CESC authorities for removal of the meters from the damaged wall. The meters belong to the respondent no. 3 and the other respondents, who allegedly are tenants under the respondent no. 3. We also find that one of the prayers in the counter claim was for a direction upon the plaintiffs to remove the electric meter and the letter box from the western side boundary wall of the premises no. 10/1A, Bakul Bagan Row, Kolkata – 25, failing which the process server may be directed to remove the same with the help of CESC ‘s men and agents. 12. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that at this stage no mandatory order can be passed when the issue is pending adjudication in the suit. Only if the CESC authorities find on inspection that the meters have been installed in such a way that there is likelihood of fire and/or a serious accident, the authorities are required to take steps. This issue can also be raised in the suit which is pending, by filing an application, which the civil court will decide in accordance with law upon contested hearing. Thus, we do not interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge. 13. Accordingly, the appeal and the application are disposed of. 4 14. The order impugned is modified accordingly. 15. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.) 5