Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS SCJ1022/24
ANANT RAM Vs. TPDDL
ORDER
27.09.2024
1. Vide this order, I will decide application under Order XXXIX
Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed on behalf of the defendant seeking
directions to the Defendant directing them to restore the
electricity connection with respect to CA no. 60008043857.
2. The facts necessary for the determination of the present
application are that the Plaintiff claims that his electricity
connection bearing CA no. 60008043857 is installed at his
residential property. On 09.05.2023, officials of the Defendant
broke the seal on the pretext of connecting the wire of the same
from another electricity pole due to which, temporary paper seal
was installed by them and the Plaintiff was informed that the
temporary seals will be replaced after sometime. Plaintiff
requested for replacement of the seal on many occassions and on
11.01.2024, representative of TPDDL came to the electricity
meter but did not replace the seal. On 12.01.2024, the Defendants
team inspected the electricity meter by removing the temporary
paper seal and the Plaintiff received an e-mail on 16.01.2024 that
his meter box will be changed. On 09.05.2024, officials of
Defendant company came and changed the electricity meter
without any objection and instructions. The Plaintiff claims that
officials of Defendant company sent notice dated 27.05.2024 for
-- 1 of 5 --
-2-
CS SCJ1022/24
ANANT RAM Vs. TPDDL
testing the old electricity meter on 03.06.2024 and that the same
was found OK on the day. However, a show cause notice dated
07.06.2024 was received by the Plaintiff which was duly replied
by him and he was assured by the Company official not to worry.
Plaintiff claims that bill no. 40008197877 for an amount of Rs.
1,45,454/- has been issued against the Plaintiff in an illegal and
arbitrary manner which has been challenged before the electricity
ombudsman and the same is still pending and despite the same,
his electricity connection was disconnected. Hence, the present
suit.
3. Submissions heard. Record perused.
4. Law as regards interlocutory injunctions is no longer res integra
and the Plaintiff has to prove existence of a prima facie case in his
favour. Prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt
but a case which can be said to be established if the evidence
which is led in support of the same were believed. It includes the
consideration of there being a probability of Plaintiff obtaining
the relief at the conclusion of the trial on the basis of the material
placed before the Court. The expression 'Balance of convenience'
means the comparative mischief or inconvenience caused to the
-- 2 of 5 --
-3-
CS SCJ1022/24
ANANT RAM Vs. TPDDL
parties whereas irreparable loss would mean a loss which cannot
be compensated by money.
5. Now coming to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the Plaintiff has been able to prove the
existence of a prima facie case in his favour. Electricity being a
basic necessity, is an integral part of life u/A 21 of the
Constitution and the same cannot be over-emphasised as
reiterated by the Hon’ble P& H High Court in Om Parkash Vs.
Balkar Singh and Ors. (2023) 1 RCR (Civil) 572. Therefore,
this Court accordingly holds that the Plaintiff has been able to
show a prima facie case in his favour. The balance of convinience
also lies in favour of the Plaintiff and this Court is of the
considered opinion that irreparable loss would be caused to the
Plaintiff if the present application is not allowed since any person
cannot be expected to survive without electricity in the current
world. However, the right of the plaintiff must be balanced with
the rights of the Defendant who has claimed dishonest abstraction
of electricity by the plaintiff.
6. Hence, In the interest of justice the application is allowed subject
to the plaintiff depositing 50% of the bill dated 24.07.2024 within
-- 3 of 5 --
10 days from today qua which the present suit has been filed and
upon the deposit being made, Defendant is directed to restore the
-- 4 of 5 --
-4-
CS SCJ1022/24
ANANT RAM Vs. TPDDL
electricity connection within 7 days. I am fortified in this view by
placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in
W.B.State Electricity Board Vs. Fakir Chand Rice Mills & Ors.,
1996 (3) SCALE 67.
7. Needless to mention that the plaintiff will continue to pay the
future bills arising out of the restored electricity connection,
failing which the defendants will be at liberty to take appropriate
steps. It is clarified that the amount directed to be deposited above
would be kept as security and would not be adjusted towards the
bill in question, subject to the outcome of the present suit.
8. In light of the aforesaid observations, the application u/O XXXIX
R 1 and 2 CPC filed on behalf of the Plaintiff is hereby allowed
subject to the plaintiff depositing 50% of the bill dated
24.07.2024 within 10 days from today qua which the present suit
has been filed and upon the deposit being made, Defendant is
directed to restore the electricity connection within 7 days.
Application is disposed of accordingly. It is reiterated that nothing
contained herein shall tantamount to any observation as regards
the merits of the present case.
(PRITU RAJ)
CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH)
ROHINI/DELHI/27.09.2024
-- 5 of 5 --