Civil Revision No. 1711 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1711 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.3.2010 Krishan Kumar .. Petitioner v. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. J. K. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the orders dated 21.1.2010 and 20.2.2010, passed by the learned courts below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for interim stay during the pendency of the suit was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner, who is a consumer of electricity, filed a suit for declaration challenging the notices issued by the respondent for deposit of the amount on account of theft of energy. Along with the suit, application for interim injunction restraining the respondent from dis- connecting the power supply of the petitioner was filed. The same having been dismissed by both the courts below, the petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that theft of energy in the present case has not yet been proved, as it was merely a show cause notice. Though the learned court below has noticed that in the laboratory test, the meter was found to be running slow, but the same is yet to be proved as procedure for testing of the meter was not followed. The petitioner in the present case is ready and willing to deposit 50% of the demand raised during the pendency of the suit for getting his supply restored and thereafter will abide by the final judgment of the court below. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find ay merit in the submissions made. It has been observed by both the courts below that at the time of inspection, the meter as well as seals were found to be tampered with. Even on laboratory checking of the meter equipment, it was found that the same was slow to the extent of 98.50%. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that testing was not done by following the procedure is a matter of Civil Revision No. 1711 of 2010 [2] evidence, which is yet to be led by the petitioner-plaintiff. As on today, considering the fact on record, where on inspection the meter as well as its seals were found to be tampered with and it was found to be running slow by 98.50%, I do not find any justification to direct restoration of the connection of the petitioner-plaintiff by way of interim stay, as the same would mean allowing the suit of the petitioner-plaintiff at the interim stage. The prayer in the application for interim injunction was for restraining the respondent from disconnecting the power supply, which has already been disconnected. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 15.3.2010 mk