1. ' These are applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, C.P.C. Praying that interim injunction may be granted restraining the defendants from disconnecting the electric connection in respect of Meter No, BL-500 of the Plaintiffs' factory, M/s. Ram7an Ice & Cold Storage, Korangi Township Industrial Area, Karachi.
2. ' The case of the plaintiff is that the Defendant K.E.S.C. Had sanctioned power load of 140 K.W. And connected load of 68 K.W. To the plaintiffs' factory when the above-noted meter was installed therein. The defendants thereafter started sending electric bills of the energy consumed by the plaintiffs' factory. First bill for the period May to August, 1984 was highly inflated, wrong and totally arbitrary. Hence the plaintiff challenged the said bill through Suit No,420/1985 in this Court. The plaintiffs withdrew the suit on the assurance of the defendants on 13-11-1984. Thereafter defendants sent bill for the months of September and October, 1984 more or less on the same reading. The plaintiffs' factory remained closed from November, 1984 to March, 1985. From April, 1985 to July, 1985 the defendants sent highly inflated bills, not based on actual reading and did not correct the bills in spite of the protest of the plaintiffs. The factory remained closed for August and September, 1985.
3. The defendants disconnected the electricity of the plaintiffs in September, 1985, which remained disconnected till May, 1987. The defendants sent bill of Rs,4,78,322 in addition to the earlier bill of Rs,5,11,445 alleging that the plaintiffs had been pilfering and unauthorisedly consuming electricity which was false. The defendants went on sending the plaintiffs false and inflated bills. Totally they sent bills amounting to Rs,27,99,761 on 12-10-1989 and 4-11-1989. Hence this suit with a prayer for declaration that the said bills are illegal and false and for rendition of accounts. Permanent injunction is also sought restraining the defendants from disconnecting the Plaintiffs' electricity.
4. ' Alongwith the suit applications for an interim injunction have been filed which are C.MAs. No, 8251 of 1989 and 8300 of 1989. The applications are supported by affidavits which have repeated the same facts as have been given in the plaint. The Defendants have filed Counter-Affidavit of their Assistant Controller of Billings, Industrial and Miscellaneous Zone, Abdul Rahman Nadeem, wherein they have denied that the bills are false or incorrect. They have admitted that Suit No, 420 of 1985 was filed and then withdrawn by the plaintiffs, but have denied that any assurance was given by the defendants. It is alleged that the plaintiffs were not allowing the staff of the defendants to read the meter on the pretext that key was not available. Hence minimum charges bill was being sent to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also filed different suits against defendants, from time to time and had been withdrawing the same and thus avoiding the payment of the electric bills. On 14-5-1989, Mohammad Sultan, owner and the Managing Partner of the Plaintiffs firm acknowledged liability in the sum of Rs,23,73,402 by an affidavit duly sworn and undertook to pay the said amount in 10 monthly instalments of Rs,2,00,000 each, but paid only one instalment and thereafter did not pay the said amount. The Plaintiffs again filed Civil Suit No, 1203 of 1989 and Suit No, 563 of 1989 in the Courts of Senior Civil Judges and again withdrew the same after delaying the recovery of the amount due against them for some time. Finally the plaintiffs have filed this suit with the sole object of hampering the recovery of the above amount.
5. ' The defendants' counsel has taken a preliminary objection to the grant of injunction on the ground that under section 54-C, no injunction can be granted restraining the discontinuance of supply of energy or requiring the restoration of the disconnected supply until and unless the plaintiff first deposits with the Court the amount assessed against him. Section 54-C of the Electricity Act IX of 1910 may be reproduced as under for the sake of convenience:-- "Section 54-C. Bar of jurisdiction'.-- ' (1) Where a licensee gives a notice referred to in subsection (1) of section 24 or discontinue supply of energy to a 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 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."
6. ' Mr. A. R. Mirza, who appeared for the plaintiffs denied that the plaintiffs had to make any such deposit. According to him, since the bills were false, incorrect and highly inflated, therefore, the plainitffs were not bound to deposit the said amount. In support of his contention he placed reliance on PLD 1988 Lah. 511, Sher Mohammad v. WAPDA wherein it was held that before disconnection of supply of energy, written notice would be necessary to be given without which very action of disconnection of supply of energy would be unlawful. Where the licensee had not given notice under section 24 of Electricity Act, 1910 and had directly proceeded to discontinue the supply of energy, bar of jurisdiction of Court under section 54-C to entertain suit and to pass order for restoration of supply of energy unless plaintiff had deposited with the Court such amount as assessed against him was not applicable. It was further observed by a Single Judge of Lahore High Court therein that a situation was created in which petitioner could only approach for temporary mandatory injunction, because the licensee could not be allowed to deprive the Court of its jurisdiction to do justice due to illegal act of the licensee."
7. ' This ruling does not apply to the facts of the present case and is quite distinguishable from the same. In the case, under this ruling, the plaintiff was not given notice under section 24 of the Electricity Act before disconnection of the electricity. Previously he was being issued usual bills and had been making payments for the same. Subsequently a raid was conducted and it was found that his meter was defective. Hence he was challenged for committing theft of electricity and was called upon to pay the amount indicated in the detection bills, otherwise his connection would be cut off. He was, therefore, taken by surprise and even rule of natural justice was violated.
8. ' In the present case it is nowhere alleged that notice under section 24 of 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.
9. ' I, therefore, find no merits in the applications. Hence I dismiss C.M. As. No, 8251 of 1989 and 8300 of 1989. The findings in this order are of tentative nature and should not be taken as prejudicial.