1. This Civil Revision is directed against order dated 07.06.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge Faisalabad and judgment dated 14.12.2016 by the learned Additional District Judge Faisalabad.
2. Through the former order application for temporary injunction filed by the respondent has been accepted and through the latter, the same has been upheld.
3. 2.Facts giving rise to the present petition are that respondent who is a consumer of electricity supplied by the petitioners filed a suit for declaration against the petitioner challenging additional demand of Rs, 242,266/- raised by the petitioners. As a consequential relief, it was prayed that his electricity connection should not be disconnected.
4. 3.Written statement was filed by the petitioners denying the claim of the respondent, whereafter, vide order dated 07.06.2016, application for grant of temporary injunction filed by the respondent was accepted and he was directed to deposit 50% of the disputed amount with the petitioners, whereupon, petitioners will be restrained from disconnecting the connection. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was filed by the petitioners which was dismissed, therefore, this petition.
5. 4.The only ground agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in view of Section 54-C of Electricity Act, 1910 (Act) in case a prohibitory order is to be passed in favour of a consumer, the same could only be subject to deposit of the total disputed amount whereas the learned trial Court granted temporary injunction on deposit of 50% of the amount. He asserts that the said stipulation is not in accordance with law therefore the impugned order/judgment are not sustainable. Places reliance on Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman and 5 others u. Messrs Kashmir Steel Furnace alias T.I. Steel Furnace (1999 CLC 492).
6. 5.Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. 6.The all important question which requires determination by this Court is that as to whether the learned trial Court was competent to grant temporary injunction on deposit of part of the disputed amount. A perusal of Section 54-C of the Act would show that if a notice under Section 24(1) of the Act is issued to a consumer for disconnection of electricity/recovery of the disputed amount, no prohibitory order could be passed unless the total amount demanded is deposited.
8. 7.The cumulative reading of Sections 24(1) & 54(C) of the Act would show that a notice for disconnection of electricity /recovery of the disputed amount is a sine-qua-non for invoking the stipulation made in Section 54-C of the Act i,e, that temporary injunction can only be granted subject to deposit of the disputed amount.
8. Placing the present case in junta position with the provisions of law, it is clear and obvious that no notice under Section A 24(1) of the Act was issued by the petitioners to the respondent in view of which the condition as contemplated in Section 54-C of the Act was not attracted and the learned trial could issue a prohibitory order subject to deposit of the partial disputed amount. For reference, reliance can be placed upon WAPDA v Amin ICE Factory (2001 M LD 1287).
9. 9.Confronted with the above, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a feeble attempt to substantiate that a notice under Section 24 of the Act was sent to the respondent. He has drawn the attention of this Court to Page 26 of case file. A perusal of this notice would show that same was issued on 13.08.2015, whereas the suit was filed on 23.07.2015, therefore, the said mandatory notice was issued after the filing of the suit. A further perusal of the said notice would show that it has been issued to some Zahoor Ahmed whereas the name of the respondent is Sheikh Masood Ahmed. In these circumstances, it is yet to be determined that whether or not, any notice under Section 24 was issued to the respondent that too prior to initiation of litigation for which evidence needs to be produced by the petitioners.
10. 10.In the attending circumstances, both the Courts did not commit any illegality or irregularity while granting temporary injunction to the respondent. As regard the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the same is distinguishable in view of the fact that in the said case, a notice under Section 24 of the Act was issued to the consumer which was assailed by him through a civil suit.
11. 11.For what has been discussed above, this petition being meritless is dismissed.