' ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.--- A suit was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner in the Civil Court against the respondents for declaration to the affect that the disputed amount assessed by the respondents is illegal, mala fide and against the facts. He also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from disconnecting the electricity connection. Along with the suit, he also filed an application for temporary injunction.
2. The suit as well as the application was contested and after hearing the parties, the learned Civil Judge granted temporary injunction subject to the condition that the plaintiff shall deposit the assessed amount in the Court. An appeal was lodged by the plaintiff which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Bannu vide order dated 21-7-2009.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been filed.
4. The main plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that jurisdiction of the Court under section 54-C of the Electricity Act 1910, is not barred because the respondents have failed to issue notice under section 24 thereof.
5. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that for the sake of arguments even if notice under section (ibid) is not issued, even then the provisions of section 54-C of the Act (ibid) would apply because the deposit of assessed amount is mandatory. He further argued that there is no prima facie case because the plaintiff has not mentioned in his plaint that notice under section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910 has not been issued before impugned notice of disconnection.
6. I have gone through the record available on file and also considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The moot point in this case is that whether before assessing the arrears, the notice as required under section 24 of the Electricity Act, 19.10 was issued. The second proposition would be that whether in the event of non-issuance of notice under the aforesaid Act the petitioner/plaintiff is entitled to claim the relief in the shape of injunction or not.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as no notice was issued as required under 'section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910, therefore no arrears can be claimed and the claim of the, respondents being against the law can be stayed by the Civil Court.
9. In order to reach to a correct conclusion, I would like to reproduce section 54-C of the Electricity Act, 1910 which reads as follows:--- 54-C. Bar of Jurisdiction.--- (1) Where a licensee gives a notice rred to in subsection (1) of section 24 or discontinue supply of energy to premises under the provisions of this Act, no Court shall make an order prohibiting the licensee from discontinuing supply of energy to the premises or requiring him to restore supply of energy to the premises or requiring him to restore supply of energy to such premises, and any such order made before the commencement of the Electricity (Amendment)
Ordinance, 1979 shall cease to have effect: Provided that nothing contained herein shall apply to a case in which the plaintiff, applicant or appellant, within a period of thirty days of the aforesaid date or at the time of filing the suit, application or appeal, as the case may be, deposits with the Court the amount assessed against him by the licensee and all further charges of the licensee as and when they become due; and in the event of his failing to do so, any order prohibiting the licensee from discontinuing the supply of energy to the premises or requiring him to restore the supply of energy to 'the premises, if already made, shall cease to have effect"
10. The above provision reveals that in fact it does not restrain the Court to issue a temporary injunction provided the petitioner deposits the C disputed amount in the Court. In this way, the issue of temporary injunction is depended upon the deposit of the disputed amount.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that since no notice was issued under section 24-C of the Act, therefore, the assessed amount is illegal.
12. Copy of the plaint would reveal that non- issue of notice under section 24-C has not been specifically taken by the plaintiff-petitioner. He has only denied the amount in dispute as against the facts and law. Even in the application for grant of temporary injunction, no mention has been made that the respondents/defendants did not give notice under section 24 of the Electricity Act.
13. In my opinion, the omission to mention the non-service of notice under section 24 of the Act (ibid), prima facie, disentitle the plaintiff to raise this issue. The presumption is that notice has been issued under E section 24 aforesaid. Had notice not been issued, this fact would have been mentioned in the plaint. In a similar situation when the issue of notice under section 24 of the Act was not raised, the honourable Sindh High Court did not consider the plea of the plaintiff. Reference may be given to 1990 M LD 999, wherein it has been held as under:--- "In the present case it is nowhere alleged that notice under section 24 of the Electricity Act was not given to the plaintiffs. On the contrary, it appears that the plaintiffs are habitual defaulters in the payment of bills and have been avoiding the payment of electric bills by abusing the process of Court by filing suits from time to time and delaying recovery of the amount of outstanding bills for the last eight yeaRs, The result is that about more than Rs,27,00,000 have become due against them. The plaintiffs have, therefore, no prima facie case whatsoever. They have not come to the Court with clean hands. They appear to be abusing the process of Court for frustrating the recovery of electricity charges due from them. The enactment of section 54-C was necessitated in order to overcome abuse of process of Court by such persons".
14. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff/petitioner is bound to deposit the disputed amount in the Court and, thereafter, the stay order would operative.
15. Consequently, I find no merit in this revision petition which is IG hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.