Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXXIX,R.1,2

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXXIX,R.1,2

Law: Electricity Act, 1910

Section: 24(1)

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Electricity Act (IX of 1910), S.24(1)---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Plaintiff (petitioner) had filed a suit for declaration against the Authority (respondent) on the ground that the latter with mala fide intention disconnected the electricity connection of the plaintiff and got registered a criminal case against him with the allegation that the plaintiff had committed theft of electricity---Authority issued a detection bill to the plaintiff, who along with the declaratory suit filed an application under O.XXXIX, R.1 & 2, C.P.C, but same was dismissed by the Trial Court---Appeal against order of the Trial Court was allowed by the First Appellate Court subject to the plaintiff depositing half the amount of the impugned detection bill within one month, and furnishing a surety bond for the remaining amount before the Trial Court---Contentions of the plaintiff were that the F.I.R. registered against him had been cancelled after thorough investigation, and that notice under section 24(1) of the Electricity Act, 1910, had not been given to him before disconnecting his meter---Validity---Record revealed that F.I.R. against the plaintiff regarding theft of electricity had not been cancelled as yet but same was only recommended for cancellation---Ingredients required for grant of temporary injunction were lacking in the case---Question of fact was involved in the matter which could not be decided without recording evidence---Order of First Appellate Court was reasonable and the court had rightly accepted the application of the plaintiff subject to deposit of one half of the impugned detection bill and to furnish surety bonds for the remaining amount---Discretionary relief had already been granted to the plaintiff and High Court found no illegal or material irregularity in the impugned order---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Mian Tariq Ahmed for Petitioner. Barrister Muhammad Ahmed Pansota and Muhammad Iqbal Javed, SDO Mansorabad, Faisalabad for Respondents. ORDER CH. SHAHID SAEED, J.--- The brief history of the case is that petitioner filed a suit for declaration on the…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492