' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J. On 14-10-2005, the respondent filed a suit against the petitioners. In the plaint, it was stated that the respondent obtained electricity connection for his restaurant. He was charged in Tariff B-I. He had been regularly paying bills when in February, 2005, he was served with a bill for January, 2005, which contained amount of Rs,40,521 as arrears. He, however, paid the said bill in routine on 15-2-2005. Thereafter the tariff was changed from B-I to A-2 with effect from January, 2005. He had, however, been paying bills. In October, 2005, he was served with a bill for the month of September, 2005 wherein a sum of Rs,1,67,491 was shown as bill adjustment. This time he protested and was told that the amount has been added on the basis of audit note. According to him the adjustment was illegal and void. He accordingly prayed for a declaration that the said bill adjustment is illegal. He also prayed that the earlier amount of Rs,40,521 be adjusted against the future bills. Along with the suit he filed an application for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from disconnecting the premises and making recovery of the amount of the said bill adjustment. The petitioners in their written statement took the plea that somehow or the other, the respondent got approved the said connection on industrial tariff instead of a commercial tariff and when the said illegality revealed, the tariff was corrected and the audit team made an objection accordingly and the amount as such is due. The application was allowed by the learned Trial Court on 6-9-2006. First appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 27-11-2006 by learned A.D.J., Faisalabad.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the temporary injunction ought not to have been granted without a direction to deposit the amount of bill adjustment.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. Admittedly, the premises was connected by the petitioners and the tariff was approved. Thereafter it was changed without notice and still there is no allegation that the respondent has not been paying bill regularly. The said bill adjustment is not based on any inquiry conducted after notice. It has been imposed as a result of audit objection, the burden to prove validity and correctness whereof will be upon the petitioners. This being so, learned Courts below have acted within B their domain while finding that the respondent has a prima facie case. The C.R. Accordingly is dismissed in limine.
Petition declined.