Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 13 CS SCJ 672-24
M/S NEW RAVI ELECTRONICS Vs. BSES RAJDHANI
POWER LTD.
18.01.2025
Present: Mr. Satyakam Saini, Learned Counsel for the
Plaintiff through VC with AR in person.
Ms. Ruchika Rathore, Learned Counsel for the
Defendant/BSES.
Admission/denial not filed by parties despite
directions. No cost is being imposed today. Be filed within four
weeks.
Plaintiff presses the application seeking temporary
injunction. Defendant has chosen to argue without filing a reply.
Heard.
It is the case of the Plaintiff that he is running a mobile
phone shop in the suit property for the last 38 years as a tenant
and had an electricity meter in his name, which was disconnected
by BSES. In the main suit he has prayed for: (1) Declaration that
the disconnection is illegal; (2) Injunction for restoration of
electricity supply; (3) Recovery of damages.
The prayer in the application seeking temporary
injunction is also to restore the electricity connection. It is argued
by the Plaintiff that the owner of the shop sold it to a third person
and BSES transferred the meter in the name of the new owner.
On inquiry as to whether the Plaintiff is paying rent to
the new owner, it is stated that the Plaintiff is not paying rent to
anyone. On a further query as to the right of the Plaintiff in the suit
property/shop without having a landlord/paying rent, it is stated that
he has been there for over 30 years.
Contd...
-- 1 of 3 --
- 2 -
Defendant/ BSES on the other hand argues that the
plaint has no merit and facts have been suppressed from this Court.
It is stated that on 19.06.2024, the officials of BSES visited the suit
property and disconnected the electricity connection on ground of
non-payment of electricity bills qua the non-domestic connection in
the name of the Plaintiff. It is further stated that Plaintiff is the user
of the electricity connection and Ms. Sangita Yadav is the owner of
the suit property as per site verification. It is on the application of
Ms. Sangita Yadav seeking name change of the concerned
electricity connection, and upon verification of documents etc., her
application was allowed, in compliance of DERC guidelines. Since
the bills are unpaid, a notice for disconnection was issued to Ms.
Yadav and thereafter another notice was issued but since no
payment was made, the connection was disconnected.
As per the pleadings of the Plaintiff, admittedly, the
last bill paid was of Rs. 3,450/- on 04.04.2024. It is not his case that
the bills thereafter are over-charged or wrongly generated or have
been paid but despite that the connection is disconnected.
Furthermore, prima facie, the Defendants have
followed due process of law in the disconnection, as per the extant
rules, after issuing notices to the registered owner not once but
twice and prima facie, no glaring illegality or violation os statute is
pointed out by the Plaintiff in the said process, specially, when as
per the Plaintiff himself, the owner of the property has changed.
The prayer of the Plaintiff in the temporary injunction
is the same as the final relief i.e. restoration of electricity and it is
settled that final relief cannot be granted at the interim stage,
Contd...
-- 2 of 3 --
- 2 -
specially when exceptional circumstances have not been shown.
The issues raised by the Plaintiff will require evidence to be led.
During the arguments, Learned Counsel for BSES has
stated that Plaintiff has not made any application for restoration of
electricity and if the same is made, the same may be considered as
per law, subject to statutory compliances being made. When this
was put to the Learned Counsel for Plaintiff, he stated that he wrote
an e-mail but did not make any application because if the procedure
were to be followed, BSES would ask him to give an NOC and he
will not be able to produce the same as he has no landlord.
This projects to this Court that the Plaintiff has not
availed the official channel/alternative remedy and has directly
approached this court to, in a way, bypass the statutory procedure.
This is not a case where the Plaintiff has received a notice of
disconnection and this Court may stay the notice till the trial
completes. What the Plaintiff essentially wants is restoration of
status quo ante/interim mandatory injunction, which, as is settled, is
to be rarely granted, as held in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi
Sorab Warden, (1990) 2 SCC 117.
Accordingly, the application by Plaintiff seeking
temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is
dismissed.
List for framing of issues on 24.04.2025.
(VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH)
Civil Judge, Patiala House Courts
New Delhi District, Delhi
-- 3 of 3 --