' KHALIL AHMAD, J.---Respondent filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against petitioners on 13-10-2006. Respondent along with the suit filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. For the grant of stay. The petitioners contested the suit as well as application.
The learned Civil Judge vide order dated 23-11-2006 accepted the application subject to deposit of half amount of detection bill within 30 days and also framed the issues. The respondent challenged the same by filing an appeal. The learned Additional District Judge, vide order dated 9-1-2007 modified the order dated 23-11-2006 and stay was granted subject to payment of 1/4th of the detection bill. Hence this petition.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. Respondent was summoned, but he was avoiding service, therefore, he was served notice through citation in daily Jang and was ultimately proceeded against ex parte on 15-12-2008.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that -the impugned order was passed in violation of section 54-C of the Electricity Act, 1910 and has relied upon Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman and 5 others v. Messrs Kashmir Steel Furnace alias T.I.Steel Furnace 1999 CLC 492 and Muhammad Akbar v. WAPDA through Chairman WAPDA House Lahore and 3 others 1999 CLC 1198, Mst. Raisa Bibi v. The Sub Divisional Officer (E) WAPDA, Operation Sub-Division, 'Mansehra and 2 others PLD 1990 Peshawar 105 to contend that under section 54-C [as amended by Electricity (Amendment) Ordinance (LXII of 1979)] till the time outstanding electricity charges have been deposited in Court, the order of temporary injunction restraining petitioners to dis- continue the supply of electricity to the respondent would be violative of express provisions of the Electricity Act, 1910.
' The orders passed by the Courts below to deposit 1/2 and 1/4th of the detection bill is thus against the clear provisions of section 54-C [as amended by electricity (Amendment) Ordinance LXII of 1979)] and as such cannot be sustained. Respondent could be granted stay by the Courts below if he had deposited the full amount of detection bill. The Revision Petition is, therefore, accepted and the orders passed by the Courts below are set aside.