Mahesh Bhagwati, J. - (1.) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 19th March, 2007 whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the Temporary Injunction application as also the order dated 29th March, 2011 whereby the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Ajmer dismissed the civil misc. appeal.
(2.) The nub of the petitioner's story is that the petitioner-plaintiff has been running a stone crusher since 1995. He has been having a commercial electrical connection to run the stone crusher. The petitioner once requested the respondent-Electricity Department to change the current transfer device, which was accordingly changed by the respondent on 26th February, 2005. That time, the Meter Box was sealed and the Meter Reader also came to take the reading, but Meter Box was never found to have been tampered with. One day, he felt a foul smell from the Meter Box and resultantly, complained to the authorities, whereupon the current transfer device was changed. It is alleged that on 15th October, 2005, the petitioner was shocked to receive electricity Bill of Rs.2,56,000/- for consumption of 59,960 electricity units. The petitioner brought this fact into the notice of the authorities who found that the wires of current transfer which was changed on 26th February, 2005 had been tampered with. The respondents-Authorities prepared a separate bill applying the average billing method and found a difference of Rs.2,36,056/-, which was duly added to the electricity bill in question. Aggrieved with the said electricity bill, the petitioner- plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction together with an application of Temporary Injunction application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC. The learned trial Court having heard both the parties dismissed the Temporary Injunction Application. The petitioner plaintiff feeling aggrieved with the said order, impugned the same in the Court of District Judge by preferring an appeal, which also stood dismissed vide order dated 29th March, 2011 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Ajmer.
(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused both the afore-stated impugned orders, it is noticed that there has been a concurrent finding with regard to the fact that the wires of C.T. device had been tampered with, which were changed on 26th February, 2005 by the respondents-Authorities. The learned trial Court as also the appellate Court did not find the prima facie case in favour of the petitioner even the balance of convenience and the ground of irreparable loss were also found against the petitioner-plaintiff.;