1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3519 OF 2009 Subhash S. Jadhav .. Petitioner Versus Executive Engineer MSEB Ltd. .. Respondent Mr.G.M.Savagave for petitioner CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 20th April 2009. P.C. . Heard Mr.Savagave for petitioner. Perused the concurrent interim orders. 2. Petitioner is original plaintiff in R.C.S.No.205 of 2006. He has filed the suit challenging notice issued on 28th June 2006 by the respondent under section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In the suit, while challenging the notice, he prayed for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from 2 disconnecting electric supply to his premises. 3. In such a suit, he applied for temporary injunction which application was rejected by the trial court and the order is confirmed by the lower appellate court. 4. The courts have concurrently held that merely because fresh bill is issued that would not permit the petitioner from raising the same pleas as are raised in the earlier suit. In the earlier suit being R.C.S.No.380 of 2005, the issue of excessive billing was raised and their also an application for interim injunction was made on self-same pleas. That application was rejected and the order was confirmed by the lower appellate court. Now on same ground and for same reasons another suit is filed and merely because a bill is raised does not mean that the plaintiff is entitled to injunction, is the prima facie conclusion. 3 5. Having perused the orders under challenge I am of the opinion that the Courts below have not committed any error nor their orders suffer from perversity soas to call for interference at this stage. The Courts have rightly observed that the respondent is entitled to issue this notice but the petitioner is resisting payment of electricity dues. It is not, therefore, entitled to any equitable relief. Petition dismissed. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)