| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 640 2011 SLD 640 2011 CLC 765 |
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No.321 of 2009, decision dated: 27-09-2010
ATTAULLAH KHAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Revision No.321 of 2009, decision dated: 27-09-2010
ATTAULLAH KHAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
SARFARAZ KHAN
VS
Law: Electricity Act, 1910
Section: 54C,24(1),24C
Law: Electricity Act, 1910
Section: 54C,24(1),24C
Electricity Act (IX of 1910)-------Ss. 24 & 54-C---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Notice of disconnection of electricity connection---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Plaintiff's application for granting of interim injunction , to restrain such disconnection---Acceptance of such application subject to deposit of assessed electricity charges in court---Plaintiff's plea that before issuing impugned notice, defendant did not issue notice under S. 24 of Electricity Act, 1910, thus, order of deposit of assessed charges was illegal---Validity---Under S.54-A of Electricity Act, 1910, issuance of interim injunction was depended upon deposit of disputed amount in count---Plaintiff had not raised plea of non-issuance of notice under S.24 either in such application or plaint, wherein only assessed charges were denied---Omission to mention in plaint non-service of notice under S.24 of the Act would disentitle plaintiff to raise such plea---Had notice under S.24 not been issued, then such fact would have been mentioned in plaint, thus, presumption would be that same had been issued---Plaintiff was bound to deposit assessed charges, whereafter stay order would become operative--High Court dismissed revision petition in circumstances. 1990 MLD 999 rel. Malik Muhammad Bashir for Petitioner. Muhammad Jamil Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 29th September, 2009. JUDGMENT ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.--- A suit was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner in the Civil Court against the respondents for declaration to the affect that - the disputed amount assessed by the respondents is illegal, mala fide and against the facts. He also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from disconnecting the electricity connection. Along with the suit, he also filed an application for temporary injunction. 2. The suit as well as the application was contested and after hearing the parties, the learned Civil Judge granted temporary injunction subject to the condition that the plaintiff shall deposit the assessed amount in the Court. An appeal was lodged by the plaintiff which was…
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