IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ petition No. 607 of 2009 (M/S) Sri Pradhuman Prasad Singh S/o Sri Kishan Lal Singh R/o Vijay Bagh, Mursan District Hathras (U.P.) .......... Petitioner/Plaintiff. Versus 1. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. Haridwar, through Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division (Urban) District Haridwar. .........Respondent/Defendant. 2. Savitri Devi W/o Late Sri Arjun Das R/o Jassaram Road Haridwar, District Haridwar. .......Formal respondent/Defendant. Shri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this petition, moved under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.04.2009 (copy annexure-5 to the writ petition), passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Haridwar, in suit No. 112 of 2009, Pradhuman Prasad Singh Vs. Uttarakhand power Corporation Ltd. 2 3. It appears that the petitioner (plaintiff) instituted suit No. 112 of 2009, before the trial court for injunction after disconnection of the electricity in the premises occupied by him as tenant. Perusal of the copy of First Information Report, which is annexure-3 to the writ petition shows that the Sub Divisional Officer of the defendant/respondent No. 1-Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., when visited premises on 18.04.2009, found that the theft of electricity being committed through a cut attached to the meter installed by the defendant/respondent No. 1. On this, the Officer of Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., lodged the First Information Report against the owner of the hotel. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is tenant and is suffering huge loss on account of disconnection of electricity. On perusal of the impugned order, passed by the trial court it is found that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, before issuing any temporary injunction, the trial court thought it just and proper to issue notice to the defendant (present respondent No. 1). 5. Having gone through said order, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any error of law committed by the trial 3 court in issuing notice before passing any temporary injunction. 6. Therefore, this petition moved under Article 227 of Constitution of India, is dismissed summarily with the observation that the trial court shall decide the application for temporary injunction, moved by the plaintiff at the earliest without being influenced by any observation made in this order. (Stay application No. 3206 of 2009, stands dismissed). Dt. 27.04.2009 (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) S