This revision petition is directed against order dated 21-9-1988 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kasur dismissing petitioner's appeal against order dated 4-4-198 passed by learned trial Court rejecting his application for temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit.
2. The facts of this case in brief are that Muhammad lqbal father of the petitioner had two electric connections. One of this electric connections was domestic having Account No. 1421-31130050 whereas the other was industrial bearing Account No. 1421-311400050. The respondents raised a demand of an amount of Rs. 7,7:7.41 against the petitioner being an amount allegedly due against industrial connection of petitioner's father against which after the death of his father the petitioner has been consuming the energy. For non-payment of the said amount the domestic electric connection was intended to be dis-connected, on the ground that both the electric connections were in the same premises and one of them could be disconnected for non-payment of any amount against the other on the principle of tiding up as stated by the officer of the respondent who appeared before me.
3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved filed a suit challenging the correctness of the demand of the said amount of Rs.7,757.41. Alongwith the suit an application for issuance of temporary injunction was made for an order restraining the respondents from recovering the said amount from the petitioner and also from disconnecting the supply of energy against the domestic electric connection. -
4. The learned trial Court dismissed the application through order dated 4-4-1588 which has been upheld in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge: which-was dismissed on 21-9-1988.
5. On the last date of `hearing, 1 directed the respondents to submit statement of details of the amount recoverable from the petitioner against the industrial electric connection. Today he has filed the same in the Court. It appears that after the death of his father the petitioner has been consuming the electricity and against the said industrial connection upto December, 1982 5n amount was found to be recoverable from the petitioner which was Rs. 7,757.41. The father of the petitioner admittedly died on 2-3-1981. The dues against the said electric connection had been cleared upto April, 1981. The said electric connection was cut off from 20-11-1982. According to the respondents from 2-3-1981 to 20-11-1982 the petitioner has been utilizing the energy against the said industrial electric connection for which he was liable to pay. No plausible explanation was given by the representatives of the department present today as to the delay in raising the said demand after a period of about six years because notice to pay the same was given. To the petitioner in the year 1988. The only explanation given was that it was pointed out by the Audit Committee while auditing the accounts that recovery of this amount may be made. He further submitted that the bills for every month in routine at the relevant time had been issued but no payment was made.
6, On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that an amount of Rs. 4,206.22 was recoverable in January, 1982 against which a payment of an amount of Rs. 1421.39 was made and the remaining amount was settled to be paid through instalments. It means that the petitioner admits to have continued utilizing the energy even after the death of his father against the said industrial concern. This amount of Rs. 1,421.39 has been shown to have been paid by the petitioner which finds mention in the statement of accounts filed by the respondent in Court. It is still to be established whether the petitioner utilized the energy even after January, 1982 and if so, what was the amount due from him. The learned two Courts below while disposing of the application of the petitioner for an order of temporary injunction have not kept in view the well established principles laid down by the superior Courts through judgments i.e. Existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The delay of six years in raising demand by the respondent was a factor which should have been considered with care and caution before holding that the petitioner was not entitled to issuance of temporary injunction. The industrial electric connection had already been disconnected and it is on account of non-payment of dues against the said account that the domestic electric connection is to be disconnected. The petitioner has made out existence of prima facie case in his favour which requires adjudication, before he could be visited with the penalty of disconnection of his domestic electric connection. The balance of convenience was in favour of the petitioner and it was he who was to suffer an irreparable loss in case of non- issuance of temporary injunction.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the Courts below have committed material irregularity and illegality in dismissing the application of the petitioner for temporary injunction. This revision petition is accepted. The impugned orders of both the Courts below are set aside. The application of the petitioner for issuance of an order of temporary injunction is hereby accepted and the respondents are restrained from recovering the disputed amount front the petitioner and from disconnecting his domestic electric connection for non-payment of the said amount subject to the following conditions; (a)That the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs. 2,907 within two months from the date of this order in the trial Court which as admitted by the learned counsel, was due from the petitioner on 21-12-1982 out the amount then due i.e. Rs. 4,206.22 against which an amount of Rs. 1,421.39 was admittedly paid by him; (b)For the remaining disputed amount he shall furnish security to the satisfaction of the trial Court that in case the petitioner fails in the suit the same shall be paid to the respondents. The security shall be furnished within two months from today.
It is clarified that if these conditions are not fulfilled the injunction order shall stand vacated. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
H.B.T./I-140/L