JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD ISLAM BHATTI, J.- The facts leading to the filing, of this writ petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, briefly stated, are that Muhammad Fayyaz Butt, a consumer of the Wapda, is running a business Centre at 70-Allama Iqbal Road, Lahore against Reference No. 13-1213-0944004-U and tariff A-2 is being charged. An inspection team of Wapda checked the meter installed at the above premises on 23.9.1998 and submitted a report which reads as under:- "The meter installed outside the premises wall in closed/welded Anti Theft Box (ATB) without Wapda Security Slips/Postal Order. Cover glass open. Cover Glass clips inverted. ATB open during checking. Top seal bogus. AH Wapda security slips of meter torn out. Read phase dead SDO to take legal action".
A detection bill in the sum of Rs. 1,61,652/- was thus prepared and served on Muhammad Fayaz Butt and the. Electric supply was disconnected. Muhammad Fayaz Butt therefore, brought a civil suit against Wapda and its functionaries alleging in his plaint inter alia that the meter installed outside his premises was working in order in a sealed box and he was regularly making the payment of bills the last being for the month of August, 1998 which was excessive and as such, he raised an objection which annoyed the staff of the defendants and they became vindictive on account of which they without any lawful justification and prior notice and with mala i.e intentions dis- connected the plaintiffs supply of energy and since they refused to restore the same, he had to seek resort to the civil action for a declaration to the effect that the meter installed at his premises was working in order and he was not a defaulter. He also prayed for the issuance of a mandatory injunction, as a consequential relief tor the restoration of the electric supply forthwith.
2. This suit was instituted on 24.9.1998 and a perusal of the plaint shows that there was no mention of the issuance of detection bill. The plaintiff/petitioner, however, moved an application for the issuance of a temporary injunction. It appears that meanwhile the detection bill was also issued and a statement in this behalf was made by the SDO in the Court.
3. This application for temporary injunction was hotly contested by the respondents and it was inter alia submitted by them that the petitioner had concealed the material facts because as per the report of the authorized checking team, the meter was found defective and a bill issued and since the petitioner had not paid the impugned bill, he was not entitled to the discretionary relief and his application was liable to be dismissed.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the relevant facts, the learned Civil Judge found that the petitioner had made out a good case for restoration of electric supply but in view of the mandatory requirement of law, he could not grant the injunction unless the disputed amount was deposited by the petitioner. He, therefore, accepted the application for restoration subject to the condition that the petitioner would pay the impugned bill within a period of seven days failing which his application would stand dismissed. Simultaneously therewith the learned Civil Judge directed the respondents to restore the petitioner's connection immediately as and when the said condition was fulfilled by him.
5. This order dated 22.10.1998 was challenged in appeal by the plaintiff Muhammad Fayaz Butt. He claimed in his grounds of appeal that the SDO had appeared in the Court in response to a notice issued for 25.9.1998 and made a wrong and false statement that there was a detection bill against the plaintiff but he could not produce the same on 25.9.1998 and even thereafter on 28.9.1998 and 29.9.1998 and it was finally on 1.10.1998 that a concocted, fabricated and illegal bill was manoeuvred and the Department insisted on the payment of the same and the Court of the learned Civil Judge also without considering the submissions made by the plaintiff-petitioner directed that the electric supply be restored to his premises after the payment of detection bill, which order was liable to be set aside.
6. This appeal was admitted to regular hearing on 28.10.1998 and the impugned order of the learned Civil Judge was suspended and modified in that instead of depositing the amount, the appellant was directed to furnish security in the said amount to the satisfaction of the learned Civil Judge.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the Wapda and other defendants respondents have filed this petition claiming that the order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge was without lawful authority and of no legal effect and that a writ be issued accordingly.
8. In this petition, an application u/S 151, CPC has also been moved requesting that the order dated 28.10.1998 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge be suspended.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and finding that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for serious consideration, this writ petition is admitted to regular hearing.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners have made a detailed e reference to the proviso to sub- section (1) of Section $4-C of the Electricity Act, 1910 and what has been laid down in Mst. Raisa Bibi vs. The Sub- Divisional Officer (E) Wapda (PLD 1990 Peshawar 105) for asserting that temporary injunction restraining the defendant from dis-continuing the supply of electricity, if not made contingent, by way of direction, to the payment of the outstanding charges, would be clearly violative of the express provisions of law.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent has, on the other had, maintained that a careful reading of the relevant provisions of law as contained in Sections 24 and 54-C would show that the bar of jurisdiction would not be attracted unless it is first shown that a notice as required u/S. 24 was duly served upon the consumer. He has placed reliance on what has been laid down in Dr. Muhammad Rafiq Chaudhry, vs. Wapda etc. (NLR 1983 Civil 133), Nadeem Oil Mills Vs. Water and Power Development Authority, etc. (NLR 1985 CLJ 512), Mian Muhammad Munir vs. Wapda, etc. (NLR 1982 Civil 663) and M/s. Abdul Khatiq Ice Factory vs. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. (1984 CLC 2720) in support of his contention that when the plaintiff had succeeded in making out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience and irreparable injury also heavily weighing in his favour, the defendants' act of cutting supply was not sustainable in law and the learned Addl.
District Judge was fully justified in modifying the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge at the time of admitting the appeal to regular hearing. According to him the barring provisions of Section 54-C also do not stand in the way of bringing a suit in the peculiar circumstances of the case.
12. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the law cited at the Bar, I find that a pecuniary loss cannot be termed as an irreparable loss and in the absence of requisite element of irreparable loss, the apprehended pecuniary loss cannot be held as a good ground for the issuance of a temporary injunction as laid down in Mst. Raisa Bibi vs. SDO (E), referred to and relied upon by both the parties and following the dictum laid down therein, while accepting the writ petition and holding that the order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge cannot sustain in law, having been passed illegally and without lawful justification, the same is set aside and the order passed by the learned Civil Judge is upheld with the modification that the amount in question shall be deposited in the Trial Court in the form of National Saving Certificates the profit whereof shall be the entitlement of the petitioner irrespective of the decision of his suit.
13. The writ petition is disposed of in the said terms but there shall be no order as to costs.