A.S. Godara, J. - (1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the appeal late order dated 21.7.1993 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Udaipur thereby partly allowing appeal against the order dated 6.7.1993 passed by the then Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur City (South) who had disallowed the application for grant of temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff-non-petitioner.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this petition are as follows:- The plaintiff, who is non-petitioner, filed a suit for injunction in the trial Court against the defendants, who are presently petitioners, with the averments that he was consuming energy (electricity) supplied by the defendant-R.S.E.B. for operation of his industrial activities since 1978 who was granted 142 H.P. connection and that the defendant-licensee (R.S.E.B.), under the agreement entered into between the parties for supply of electricity for consumption by the plaintiff-consumer, was also under obligation to have supplied, affixed and maintained a correct meter thereby showing consumption of the electricity by the consumer but it was alleged that the plaintiff noticed that the meter fixed in the premises of the plaintiff for recording of the consumption of the energy consumed by the plaintiff, on 7.1.1993, was dead/stopped showing no consumption of electricity and he, accordingly, informed defendant No. 3 about it on 8.1.1993 and 12.1.1993 respectively on telephone and also reminded on 14.1.1993 in writing that meter was stopped and, according, the same may be immediately replaced but the defendants did not take any care. However, after previous recording of the consumption of the energy as recorded by the meter on 31.12.1992, the bill of electricity consumption for Rs. 15,263/- was issued on 13.1.1993 by the defendants and the same was deposited on 23.1.1993. However, in the month of January, 1993 and onwards, the meter being stopped, did not work recording any consumption of the energy and the meter was also not changed /replaced by the defendants inspite of request of the plaintiff and, at last, on 29.5.1993, the defendants sent a letter to the plaintiff that since an electricity meter of Order 5 Class was not available in the stock and, therefore, it was requested that the price of the meter may be deposited with the defendants so as to purchase a new meter for replacement of the defective meter. However, the defendants issued two bills of electricity consumption dated 4.2.1993 and 4.3.1993 for the alleged consumption of electricity for the months of January and February, 1993 respectively and the plaintiff deposited a total sum of Rs. 68,597/- under protest with the defendants.
(3.) It was also alleged that the bills dated 4.2.1993 and 4.3.1993 were prepared on the basis of average consumption of electricity energy by the plaintiff and recorded during the previous 12 months immediately preceding the months in which the meter was found stopped and ceased to function, in view of the provisions of Cl. 19(vii) of the General Condition of Supply of Electrical Energy by the R.S.E.B.;