- (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3.9.2013 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No.1, Kota (South), Kota, whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC by the petitioner. The petitioner is equally aggrieved by the order dated 9.10.2013 passed by Addl. District Judge No.4, Kota, whereby the learned Judge has confirmed the order dated 3.9.2013 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case of petitioner was with regard to the disconnection of the electricity connection and for its restoration. In the joint inspection report carried out on 7.8.2013 in column-16 it was clearly written that the meter indication is OK. However, the electricity connection has been disconnected ostensibly on the ground that the meter's seals were broken. According to the learned counsel, till the meter is tested, merely by showing that the seals were broken, would not lead to the conclusion that the meter has been tampered with, and that electricity has been stolen by the petitioner. Moreover, in order to show the reason as to why the electricity consumption was less than earlier occasions, the petitioner had submitted documents to show that the production of mustard oil was decreased during the relevant period. Hence, the petitioner had clearly established a prima facie case in his favour. But, notwithstanding the same, both the learned courts below have erred in dismissing his application for temporary injunction. Therefore, both the orders deserve to be set aside.
(3.) Heard the learned counsel and perused both the impugned orders.;