IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1744 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: February 17, 2011. Municipal Corporation, Bathinda. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and another. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. H.K.Aurora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Madhu Dayal, Advocate for the respondents. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned orders dated 08.09.2007 and 26.09.2009 passed by courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned orders passed by learned court below. CR No.1744 of 2010 Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit against respondents- defendants alongwith an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure for ad interim injunction order on the brief allegations that petitioner-plaintiff is consumer of electricity vide accounts numbers mentioned in the plaint installed in Paras Ram Nagar having sanctioned load of various Killo Watts. Electricity charges were being paid by the petitioner- plaintiff from time to time and however, respondent sent bills for `5,36,542/-, detail of which has been given in the plaint, in an illegal manner and hence, this suit. Respondents-defendants appeared and filed written statement. It has been denied that petitioner has been regularly paying electricity charges. Issuance of bills in dispute is admitted. However, plea has been taken that checking was made by Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement-I, Bathinda as per rules and on checking it was found that the theft of electricity was being committed by petitioner and hence, notice for recovery was issued. Learned trial Court after hearing counsel for both the parties, dismissed the application of the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC finding no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner filed appeal before learned appellate Court. Learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda dismissed the appeal by observing as under:- “7. For issuance of ad-interim injunction, the applicant has to prove that prima facie case and balance of convenience is in his favour and that if no such injunction is granted, he shall suffer an irreparable loss. In the case in hand disputed amount relates to the penalty imposed by respondents on the basis of theft of electricity and on the basis of report made by raiding party on 22.2.2006, with regard to the electric connections of appellant. 2 CR No.1744 of 2010 Main plea of the appellant is that the surprise raid should be conducted in the presence of the consumer. An amount of Rs.2 lacs out of the disputed amount, has already been deposited by appellant. Raid was conducted by responsible officials of the respondents, headed by Senior Executive Engineer Sh. Hardev Singh. Both parties are working for the welfare of the general public. Certainly if ad interim injunction is granted in this case, it will create hindrance in the working of the respondents. Otherwise, also loss of money is not irreparable loss. If at any stage, lower court comes to the conclusion that the amount in dispute has been wrongly deposited with the respondents, appropriate order can be passed in this regard. Whole case of the appellant depends upon the evidence, which is yet to be led. So after considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, learned lower court has rightly exercised its discretion and has rightly rejected application of appellant moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Order under challenge, is perfectly legal order and it does not suffer from any illegality and infirmity. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.” It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that it was not the case of theft and hence, checking could not be done by officers of the respondent-board without giving notice to the petitioner and hence, it is contended that the demand is illegal on this ground alone. He has also placed reliance upon Tarsem Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, 2002(2) RCR(Civil) 772. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondents that it is a case of theft. Surprise checking was done by senior officers of the Board and it has been found that theft was being 3 CR No.1744 of 2010 committed by petitioner-Corporation and hence, it has been contended that respondent-Board is legally entitled to recover the amount of bills as per the checking. Law is well settled that at this stage, prima facie case, balance of convenience and the fact that as to whether irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioner-plaintiff if ad-interim injunction is not granted, are to be seen. Petitioner is Municipal Corporation i.e. Government Local Body. The fact as to whether it was case of theft of the electricity or not is a matter of evidence. At this stage, respondents have been able to show that notice of recovery was given to petitioner on the basis of surprise checking conducted by senior officers of respondent-Board headed by Senior Executive Engineer. Hence, it cannot be said that prima case for ad interim injunction is made out in favour of petitioner-Corporation. No irreparable loss is going to be caused to petitioner-Corporation as in case it succeeds in the present case, the disputed amount can be recovered from respondent-Board. Both the courts after discussing all the facts of the case have come to the conclusion that petitioner is not entitled for ad interim injunction. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by courts below by passing the impugned orders or grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) February 17, 2011. JUDGE 4 CR No.1744 of 2010 'om' 5