MILAP CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar dated 30. 7. 88 by which the plaintiff-appellant's petition moved under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, CPC. has been rejected. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.
(2.) THE plaintiff-appellant get an electric connection of 250 K. V. A. from the Rajasthan State Electricity Board after depositing a sum of Rs. 4575/-as security, Rs. 5425/- were further deposited as security. On June 10, 1978, the respondent issued a bill demanding Rs. 8037/-,in cash and a bank guarantee of Rs. 36114/- as further security. THE said amount of Rs. 8057/- was accordingly deposited. THE plantiff appellant requested the defendant-respondent that a sum of Rs. 72500-71 paisa has accrued as interest towards the said amount of security of Rs. 10,000/- and the said amount of Rs. 36,114/- be adjusted and the payment of remaining amount of Rs. 36,391-71 paisa be made accordingly. THE defendant threatened to disconnect the electric connection. THEreafter, a suit was filed for injunction along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, C. P. C. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court rejected it by its order under appeal. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant that the learned trial court has acted with material irregularity in holding that the plaintiff has no prima facie case in his favour and in dismissing the application moved under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, C. P. C. He further contended that the plaintiff is entitled to get the interest on the amounts of security deposited by him and he relied upon A. I. R. 1983 S. C. 12. 96 and 1987 RLW 107 in support of his contention. He lastly contended that the defendant did not disclose necessary details warranting further security. In reply, the learned counsel for the defendant respondent contended that the defendant is not liable to pay any interest under the terms of the agreement and the additional security has been demended in accordence with the general terms and conditions of the supply of electricity. It has not been stated in the memorandum off appeal or shown during the arguments under what law or agreement the plaintiff is entitled to get interest on the amounts of security. It is well settled law that interest can be claimed either under the Interest Act 1978 or under some agreement or under some usage having force of law. It is, however, clear from the perusal of Section 4 (2), Interest Act, 1978 that interest is not payably on the money deposited as security for the purpose of an obligation imposed by law or contract. Note (11) given below para 2 (Schedule of Service & Misc. Charges) of the general conditions of supply and scheduled of miscellaneous charges relating to the supply of elctricity (1964) clearly provides that no interest would be paid on the security deposit. The operation of the decision reported in 1987 R. L. W. 107 has been stayed by a division bench of this Court. In M/s. B. H. Oil Mills, Bharatpur Vs. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board. Bharatpur (. 1) the demand of additional security has been hold to be valid. The learned trial court has rightly held that the plaintiff has failed to establish prima face case in his favour for his claim of interest on the amount of security.
(3.) THE learned trial court has also rightly observed that the plaintiff would not suffer any irreparable injury if the injunction sought is not granted and the balance of convenience is also not in its favour. It is well settled law that an appellate court should be very slow in interfering with such a discret-irnary order. THE facts of the case reported in 1983 S. C. 129 are different and distinguishable. In this case the dispute was regarding the rate of interest and not about the liability for the payment of interest. Thus, there is no force in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with costs. .;