R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) PUNJAB State Electricity Board, Patiala (hereinafter called the Board) has filed the present regular second appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.3.2000 passed by Addl. District Judge, Patiala, who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 29.3.1996 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Patiala, who decreed the suit by holding that the plaintiff is not liable to pay the disputed amount demanded by the defendant/appellants and defendants were also restrained from disconnecting the electricity supply to the premises of the plaintiff due to the non-payment of that amount.
(2.) SOME facts can be stated in the following manner :- Joginder Singh plaintiff, proprietor of Hotel Green Bar and Restaurant, is carrying on the business at Patiala. He obtained electric connections No. MR10/0298, MR10/0246 and 31/15. On 11.6.1991 Flying Squad of the Board visited the premises of the plaintiff for checking, Flying squad thoroughly checked the meters and other fittings which were found intact including the seals of the meters. It was pleaded that the load being used by the plaintiff was within sanctioned load. However, the Flying Squad calculated the load to be beyond sanctioned limit. Their calculation was incorrect. The plaintiff had been clarifying the entire position but the Flying Squad with a mala fide intention to harass the plaintiff did not agree with the plaintiff. The intention of the Flying Squad was to harm the plaintiff due to the fact that there had been earlier litigation between the plaintiff and the Board. A contempt petition was also pending against one P.P. Bithal, the then SDO West, which was filed by the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the plaintiff had the apprehension that the members of the Flying Squad have submitted a false report and the Board has imposed penalty against him. The Board had threatened that it would disconnect the electric connections of the plaintiff which action is against the law. With these broad allegations the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. They filed the written statement and denied the allegations. According to the defendant Board, it was correct that the plaintiff was a consumer and three electric connections had been sanctioned in his favour. It is also admitted that at the time of checking i.e. on 11.8.1991 the seals of the meters were intact. However, it was submitted by the defendants that the plaintiff was using unauthorised load. The meter of electric connection No. MR-10/0246 was found to be sticky. The details of the checking of the meters had been stated as follows :- Sr. No. A/c. No. Category Detected load Sanctioned load Unauthorised load 1. MR 10/246 NRD 35.780 26.000 9.780 2. 31/15 S.P. 29.163 02.984 26.179 3. MR 10/298 NRS. 7.560 10.240, - It was pleaded that the plaintiff is liable to pay surcharge @ Rs. 100/- per K.W. The amount comes to Rs. 35,959/-. Account No. MR-10/0246 of the plaintiff was over-hauled due to the reason that the meter of this account was sticky. Due to this count the plaintiff was liable to pay additional amount of Rs. 11,300/-. In this manner, the plaintiff is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 47,259/-. It was also the defence of the defendants that the suit of the plaintiff is premature. Moreover, it has not been filed by a competent person. No cause of action has arisen to the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendants in which he retirated the averments of the plaint by denying those of the written statement.
(3.) THE learned trial Court framed the following issues from the pleadings of the parties :- "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction so as to restrain the defendants from disconnecting the disputed electricity connections on the grounds mentioned in the application ? OPP 2. Whether the action of the defendants in imposing penalty and recovering the other charges regarding the disputed electricity connections is illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff ? OPP 3. Whether the suit is premature ? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 5. Whether the suit is mala fide ? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not competent ? OPD 7. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit ? OPD 8. Relief." ;