P L D 2000 Peshawar 4 (PLP)

‑‑‑‑S. 54‑C‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2‑‑‑Bar of jurisdiction‑‑‑Interim relief in shape of temporary injunction restraining the defendants/licenser from disconnecting supply of electricity, was granted to licensee subject to condition that he will deposit the disputed amount in the Court as required under S.54‑C, Electricity Act, 1910‑‑‑Contention of the licensee was that provisions of S.54‑C, Electricity Act, 1910 were not attracted as his suit based on the report of 'Executive Engineer and laboratory test was well‑founded‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Licensee's suit was relevant only to the existence of a fair prima facie case which was one of the prerequisites for grant of temporary injunction‑‑‑High Court directed the licensee to deposit the disputed amount in the Court failing which order prohibiting the licenser from discontinuing the supply of energy shall cease to have effect. Mst. Raisa Bibi v. The Sub‑Divisioinal Officer (E), WAPDA, Operation Sub‑Division, Mansehra and 2 others PLD 1990 Pesh. 105; WAPDA v. Muhammad Fayyaz Butt 1999 MLD 2731 and Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman, WAPDA, WAPDA House, Lahore and others v. Messrs Kashmiri Steel Furnace alias T.I. Steel Furnace, Bund Road, Baghbanpura, Lahore 1999 CLC 492 rel. Iqbal Ahmad Durrani for Petitioner. Saadat Hussain for Respondents. Date of hearing: 29th July, 1999. This revision petition calls in question the order dated 16‑6‑1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge‑I, Peshawar in Civil Appeal No.130/14 affirming the order dated 10‑5‑1999 of the learned Civil Judge, Peshawar whereby interim relief in the shape of a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from disconnecting supply of electricity to the suit premises was granted to the petitioner subject to condition that he will deposit the disputed amount of Rs.83,436 in the Court as required under section 54‑C of the Electricity Act, 1910.

2. The facts are rather short. Sometime in the month of June, 1998 the petitioner received an electricity bill in the sum of Rs.23,

537. Taking exception to the amount he filed a complaint before they Executive Engineer, P.E.S.C.O., Peshawar as a result of which the meter installed in his house was sent to the Laboratory for checking. In the meantime, he received bills for the months of July and August, 1998 which too were considered by him to be on the higher side. Ultimately, in the light of the Laboratory report that the meter was defective the Executive Engineer, P.E.S.C.O. sanctioned a credit of Rs.83,436 and directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.33,921 as arrears which were deposited under protest. However, the order passed by the Executive Engineer was set aside be the Superintending Engineer, P.E.S.C.O. on 30‑4‑1999 Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the validity of the order dated 30‑4‑1999 through a declaratory suit and simultaneously moved an application for grant of a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from disconnecting supply of electricity to the premises. The learned trial Court granted the interim relief subject to. the condition that the disputed amount shall be deposited in the Court as envisaged by section 54‑C of the Electricity' Act, 1910. The petitioner took the matter in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge‑I, Peshawar but without any success.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, who was in attendance on pre‑admission notice, I have come to the irresistible conclusion that the impugned orders are unexceptionable. It is by now firmly settled that a temporary injunction cannot be granted if any‑ of the three essential elements, namely, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss is missing and a loss which can be measured in terms of money cannot be termed as an irreparable loss. However, section 54‑C of the Electricity Act, 1910 has mollified the element of irreparable loss vis‑a‑vis the cases in regard to supply of energy by providing that interim relief can be granted if the amount assessed against a consumer by the licensee is deposited with the Court. This extraordinary concession has made the deposit of disputed amount in the Court a condition precedent for grant of interim relief and temporary injunction cannot be granted unless the requirement of section 54‑C of the Electricity .Act, 1910 is fulfilled. The view not only gets support from the text of the said provision of law, which is too explicit to need elucidation, but also from the case‑law reported as Mst. Raisa Bibi v. The Sub -Divisional Officer (E), WAPDA, Operation Sub‑Division, Mansehra and 2 others PLD 1990 Pesh. 105; WAPDA v. Muhammad Fayyaz Butt 1999 MLD 2731 and Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman, WAPDA, WAPDA House, Lahore and others v. M/s. Kashmiri Steel Furnace alias T. I. Steel Furnace, Bund Road, Baghbanpura, Lahore 1999 CLC 492.

4. As regards the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner with vehemence that the provisions of section 54‑C of the Electricity Act, 1910 were not attracted as the petitioner's suit having been based on the report of the Executive Engineer, P.E.S.C.O. and the Laboratory test was well‑founded it would be enough to say that at this stage strength of the petitioner's claim points only to the existence of a fair prima facie case which is one of the prerequisites for grant of a temporary injunction. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed in limine with these observations that the petitioner shall deposit the disputed amount in the Court within fifteen days from the date of 'this order failing which the order prohibiting the licensee from discontinuing the supply of energy to the suit premises shall cease to have effect. Needless to mention that the defendants/respondents shall not disconnect the supply of electricity before the expire of the said period. No order as to costs. C.M.A./436/P Petition dismissed.