Civil Revision No. 2860 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2860 of 2010 Date of decision : September 01, 2010 Bharat Singh ....Petitioner versus S.D.O. (OP) D.H.B.V.N.L and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Anil Ghangas, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Plaintiff Bharat Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing judgment dated 7.4.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani. Plaintiff has filed suit assailing electricity bill Annexure P/3 issued by the defendants-respondents to the plaintiff-petitioner. The said bill is for ` 50,789/- but the plaintiff disputed it to the extent of ` 41,386/-. The plaintiff sought temporary injunction restraining the defendants from recovering disputed amount of ` 41,386/- from the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. Defendants controverted averments of the plaintiff-respondent Civil Revision No. 2860 of 2010 -2- and raised various pleas. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Charkhi Dadri vide order dated 25.10.2005, Annexure P/4 allowed application of plaintiff for temporary injunction and restrained defendants from recovering amount of the impugned bill (except amount of Rs 13,479/- which already stood deposited by the plaintiff) during the pendency of the suit. However, appeal preferred against the said order by the defendants has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani vide impugned judgment dated 7.4.2010, Annexure P/5 and thereby application moved by the plaintiff for temporary injunction stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner contended that the petitioner vide application dated 24.8.2004, Annexure P/2 submitted in the office of defendant-respondent no. 1 on 25.8.2004 prayed for temporary disconnection of the electricity connection of Ice Factory (seasonal industry) of the plaintiff-petitioner since 12.9.2004 till 12.3.2005 and therefore, the defendants are not entitled to claim minimum consumption charges for the said period. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that no such application as Annexure P/2 for temporary disconnection of the electricity connection of the plaintiff-petitioner was moved nor there is any pleading to this effect in the plaint and therefore, the defendants are entitled to recover the minimum consumption charges from Civil Revision No. 2860 of 2010 -3- the plaintiff-petitioner. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. According to Sales Circular of the respondents, electricity connection of seasonal industry can be got disconnected by moving application and in that event minimum consumption charges for the next one month only can be recovered and minimum charges for the remaining period of temporary disconnection cannot be recovered. In view thereof, the plaintiff has deposited ` 13,479/- out of the bill amount. However, the plaintiff has not pleaded in the plaint that he had moved application Annexure P/2 for temporary disconnection of the electricity connection. At the same time, photostat copy of the said application was placed on the record of the trial court. Moreover, perusal of order Annexure P/4 of the trial court reveals that counsel for the defendants admitted in the trial court that plaintiff had made application dated 24.8.2004 for temporary disconnection of his electricity connection. However, it was also submitted in the trial court on behalf of the defendants that said request of the plaintiff-defendant was declined. There is, however, nothing on record to depict that the said request was declined and if so on what ground. Keeping in view all the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if recovery of half the balance disputed amount is stayed during the pendency of the suit on the condition that the plaintiff-petitioner pays the remaining half amount. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed partly and impugned judgment dated 7.4.2010 Annexure P/5 passed by the appellate court is set aside and order dated 25.10.2005, Annexure P/4 passed by the trial court is Civil Revision No. 2860 of 2010 -4- modified and temporary injunction application moved by the plaintiff- petitioner is allowed partly. Defendants are restrained from recovering half of the balance amount of the disputed bill during the pendency of the suit subject to the condition that the plaintiff-petitioner shall deposit the remaining half amount within two months from today. Nothing observed herein shall have any bearing on merits of the suit. ( L.N. Mittal ) October 01, 20101 Judge 'dalbir'