1. The respondent in this case filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The matter related to a detection bill. The respondent also prayed for temporary injunction against recovery of Rs.1,28,182 because it was assailed that this amount was neither fixed nor determined.
2. ' The learned trial Court through its order of 3-2-2003, while allowing temporary injunction, made the following observations:-- "In these circumstances I hereby restrain the defendants from disconnecting the connection of electricity of plaintiff provided that the plaintiff/petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.1,28,182 within a period of 30 days. With these observations I hereby dispose of the present application of temporary injunction. "
3. ' Through this order, the learned trial Court also framed issues as are reflected in the said order.
4. The matter was taken in appeal, before Rana Riaz Ahmad Khan, learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, who came to the following conclusion:-- "The order for depositing Rs.1,28,182 is of harsh nature. Keeping in view the circumstances of this case, the passing of this order amounts to refuse the temporary injunction. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to delete the condition to deposit the amount and to order the appellant to furnish surety bond of equal amount along with one surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court."
5. ' Against which, WAPDA is before this Court assailing the substituting order of the learned First Appellate Court, which according to him, was something exceptional and violative of section 54-A, Of the Electricity Act, 1910.
6. ' At the preliminary stage, notice was issued to the respondent side who did not appear and, therefore, on 6-9-2004 he was proceeded ex parte and the case was fixed for ex parte arguments way back on 23-9-2004. The matter has now come up today for hearing of the arguments.
7. ' The question whether section 54-A of the Electricity Act, under the circumstances, was strictly applicable, is debateable and calls for detailed arguments and, therefore, adverting to what the learned counsel is saying while referring to section 54-A of the Electricity Act, during the ex parte proceedings does not seem proper being even otherwise a fiscal issue.
8. Anyway, the trial Court granted the stay conditionally upon payment of this amount, which means that the trial Court at the very outset of the case accepted the correctness of the amount. It seems that no reference was even made to the provisions of Order X of the Civil Procedure Code for ascertaining about what the exact amount would be, whereas there was a controversy about the amount due and this called for some probe.
9. ' Anyway, when the matter went to the learned First Appellate Court, it exercised its discretion by substituting it with a surety bond which obviously is not as good a guarantee as a cash deposit or a bank guarantee.
10. ' We have also to see that allowing too much of concession to a consumer against a claimed bill, can make him feel relaxed with respect to the case and can also cause financial problems for a statutory body.
11. ' So, at the interim stage, some sort of method has to be evolved by the Courts dynamically so that both parties were placed in a position of equal advantage and disadvantage which is the purpose of justice.
12. ' Keeping these standards in view, this Court would direct that the order of the learned Civil Judge be modified to the extent that the respondent deposit in cash with the trial Court 1/3rd of amount of the bill claimed and for the other 2/3rd provided a bank guarantee within a period of six weeks from today, failing which the stay order shall stand vacated.
13. ' A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the learned trial Court through the learned District Judge, Faisalabad, who is further directed to ensure that this case is disposed of within a period of two months from the receipt of this order.
14. ' With these directions and observations, this revision petition stands disposed of.