' CH. SHAHID SAEED, J.---The brief history of the case is that petitioner filed a suit for declaration on the ground that the petitioner is consumer of electricity meter No,22-3132-72025208; that the petitioner used to pay electricity bill regularly; that on 28-10-2009 respondents/ defendants with mala fide intention disconnected the electricity connection of petitioner and got registered criminal case F.I.R. No,721 of 2009 under Electricity Act, 1910 with the allegation that the petitioner has committed theft of Electricity. Further after disconnecting electricity connection the respondents issued deduction bill of Rs,12,67000. That later on the above mentioned F.I.R. Was recommended to be cancelled by the local Police after thoroughly investigation declaring it false and frivolous; it was further alleged in the plaint that number of requests were made to respondents to restore the electricity connection of petitioner but the respondents refused to do so.
Along with the suit petitioner filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules I and 2, C.P.C. Which was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 14-7-2011. Petitioner preferred an appeal which was allowed by the learned 1st Appellate Court in the manner that the petitioner will deposit one half amount of impugned detection bill within one month, whereas he will furnish surety bond for the remaining half amount before the trial court. Feeling aggrieved by the said order petitioner has filed the instant Civil Revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned orders are against law and without lawful authority; that the F.I.R. No,721 of 2009 has been cancelled after thorough investigation; Further argued that notice under section 24(1) of Electricity Act, 1910 has not been given to the petitioner before disconnecting his meter.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that there is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned orders and has also supported the same:
4. Heard. Record perused.
5: Undisputedly, it is a money matter in which huge amount in shape of deduction bill is involved.
Record reflects that F.I.R. Against the petitioner regarding theft of electricity has yet not been cancelled but only the same has been recommended for cancellation. Question of fact is involved in the matter which cannot be decided without recording the evidence of both the parties. All the basic three ingredients for grant of temporary injunction are lacking in this case. Learned Appellate court has rightly accepted the application of the petitioner subject to deposit of one half of the impugned detection bill and with respect to remaining amount it was ordered to furnish surety bonds. The impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge is quite reasonable.
Discretionary relief has already been granted to the petitioner. I find no illegality or material irregularity in it
6. For the foregoing reasons, there is no force in the instant civil revision and the same is dismissed.