IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19240 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANOJ ZACHARIAH, S/O.A.JOHN ZACHARIAH, ANCHERIL HOUSE, NATTASSERY KARA, MUTTAMBALAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.SASIDHARAN SRI.SANTHOSH THOMAS KANDAMCHIRA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, VIDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KOTTAYAM EAST. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.19240 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard both sides. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3 communication issued by the 2nd respondent. 3. Facts of the case are that, petitioner was availing of supply of energy in his residential premises with consumer No.795. There was an inspection by the Anti Power Theft Squad of the Board on 30.5.2000, following the same, a bill for Rs.3,56,400/- was issued. Thereupon the petitioner filed O.S.No.220/00 before the Sub Court, Kottayam along with I.A.NO.1650/00. In the I.A, the Sub Court passed Ext.P1 order restraining the defendants, the respondents herein, from disconnecting the electric supply of electricity to the petitioner until further orders. 4. Petitioner submits that while the interim order was in force as above, the suit was listed for trial, and was WP(c).No.19240/09 2 dismissed for default on 1.12.2008. Thereafter also he did not pay the amount due under the bill and therefore after notice, supply was disconnected on 22.5.2009. Meanwhile petitioner filed I.A.No.1585/09, seeking restoration of the suit and finally the suit was restored on the file on 23.6.2009. 5. On restoration of the suit as above, petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application to the 2nd respondent, praying for restoration of power supply as well. On its receipt, Ext.P3 reply has been given by the 2nd respondent calling upon the petitioner to remit 50% of the bill amount for reconnecting supply to his premises. It is in these circumstances, writ petitioner has been filed. 6. Contention raised by the counsel is that the suit having been restored Ext.P1 interim order passed by the Civil Court also is revived. Therefore the respondent is bound to restore power supply to his premises. He also placed reliance on the judgment of this court in Varred Jacob V. Sosama (2001(3)KLT 128). WP(c).No.19240/09 3 7. I have heard the counsel on either side. Admittedly, the Civil Court had passed Ext.P1 order by which, the respondent were restrained from disconnecting power supply for non-payment of the amount demanded as per the bill referred above. This order, according to the petitioner was in force till the suit was dismissed for default. The suit is now restored on 23.6.09 pursuant to the order in I.A. No.1589/09. The effect of such restoration of the suit has been examined by this court in Ulahannan Chacko V. Mathai (1986 KLT 301) and in Varred Jacob V. Sosama (2001(3)KLT 128) where it has been held that once an order of dismissal is set aside and the suit is restored to file, the plaintiff must be put back in position, in which he was situated when the court dismissed the suit for default. It is also held that any interlocutory order passed before the order of dismissal will also be revived along with the said suit when the order of dismissal has been set aside. If the law as laid down in the aforesaid judgment is applied to the facts of this case, it cannot not be contested WP(c).No.19240/09 4 that when O.S.No.220/00 filed by the petitioner was restored to file on 23.6.2009, Ext.P1 order also is revived. If so, the petitioner was entitled to have continued supply of power and the respondents ought to have restored supply without any conditions. In that view of the matter direction in Ext.P3 requiring the petitioner to remit 50% of the amount due is clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P3 and directing the respondents to restore power connection to consumer No.795 in the premises of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, on the production of a copy of the judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the 2nd respondent for hearing. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.19240/09 5