Rakesh Garg, J. - (1.) BY way of this appeal, the plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court whereby the appeal filed by the defendant -respondent has been accepted and the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been set aside resulting into dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff.
(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing recovery of Rs. 50,000/ - of penalty imposed vide memo No. 670 dated 26.7.2005 forcibly, illegally from the plaintiff and also disconnecting the connection of meter bearing No. MF/21/0054 forcibly and illegally for all times to come, alleging therein that the electrical meter No. MF/21/0054 was installed in the shop of Dhajja Ram which adjoins the shop of the plaintiff and which had been purchased by him and accordingly, the plaintiff had moved an application to the department of the defendants on 4.2.2003 for shifting the aforesaid meter in his nearby shop. The plaintiff had been paying regularly his electricity bills and till today nothing is due against him, but on 23.7.2005 staff of the defendants illegally checked the premises of the plaintiff and issued an illegal memo No. 670 dated 26.7.2005 whereby they imposed the penalty amount of Rs. 50,000/ - on the plaintiff on the grounds that he had shifted the meter in question without approval of the defendants in his nearby shop, whereas the facts remain that the defendants had already been intimated by him vide application dated 4.2.2003 Ex.P1. However, the plaintiff had been requesting the defendants several times to admit the claim of the plaintiff but in vain. Hence, the need arose to file the present suit against them. Defendant No. 1 controverted the averments made in the plaint through written statement wherein it was stated that the plaintiff had shifted the meter in question without approval of the defendants in his nearby shop and he was consuming load 4.260 KW as against the sanctioned load 2 KW on the aforesaid meter. Therefore, the impugned penalty amount had been legally imposed upon him as per rules of the department. Hence his suit is liable to be dismissed with costs being frivolous and false.
(3.) THE parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. After hearing arguments, the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and the defendants were restrained from effecting recovery of the impugned penalty amount of Rs. 50,000/ - and disconnecting the electricity supply to the meter No. MF/21/0054, without giving the opportunity of being heard to the plaintiff and without deciding his application dated 4.2.2003 regarding shifting of the meter in question in accordance with the provisions of law.;