- (1.) This revisional application is directed against Order No. 4 dated 20th August, 2007 passed by the learned District Judge at Alipore, District 24-Parganas (South) in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 338 of 2007arising out of Order No.2 dated 8th August, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 847 of 2007.
(2.) The plaintiff is the petitioner before this Court. In Title Suit No. 847 of 2007 the plaintiff prayed, inter alia, for a declaration that the defendant has no right to disconnect the supply of electricity through the commercial meter of the plaintiff as there is no allegation against the commercial meter. In the said suit the petitioner filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order sheet reveals that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) rejected the prayer for ad-interim order of injunction. In support of such rejection the learned Trial Court held that the self-same cause of action another suit being Title Suit No. 225 of 2002 was pending in the same Court. There was no prima facie case in support of grant of injunction thereby also no balance of convenience and inconvenience in favour of grant of injunction. Against the said order of refusing to grant ad-interim order of injunction, the plaintiff/petitioner filed an appeal being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 338 of 2007. The learned Appellate Court directed to issue notice asking the respondent to show cause within ten days of service thereof as to why the defendant shall not be so restrained as prayed for. The Appellate Court below held that there was no justification to pass an exparte ad-interim order. When on perusal of the documents, the learned Court below found that there was no strong prima facie case, urgency and/or balance of convenience and inconvenience in favour of the appellant warranting grant of adinterim order of injunction. Mr. Rishav Dutt, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party submits that there was no scope to file any written objection to the application for temporary injunction. He submits that the suit is barred under the Electricity Act and that apart, the petitioner is a consumer of commercial as also domestic. In view of the provisions of Electricity Act, if allegation of pilferage is evident then the authority can take steps for disconnection in respect of other meter held by same consumer. However, the question of maintainability and other points may be taken by the opposite party before the learned Trial Court. There is no use in keeping this matter pending as I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
(3.) The revisional application is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. In view of the order passed in this revisional application, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 338 of 2007 pending. The Miscellaneous Appeal also stands disposed of. The learned Trial Court is directed to hear out the application for temporary injunction as early as possible after giving an opportunity of hearing to the defendant/opposite party.;