A. XXXIX, Rr 1 and 2 Electricity Act (I10 of 1910), Section 24 (1) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 42 Plaintiff (applicant) declares a declaration against Land Authority (Defendant) Had filed. The latter intentionally disconnected the power of the plaintiff and a criminal case was filed against him alleging that the plaintiff had committed electricity theft, he issued a tracking bill to the plaintiff, which, along with the declaratory case. Filed a case together. O XXXXX, Rr 1 & 2, Request under CPC, but dismissed by the trial court, the First Appeal Court against the trial trial advised the plaintiff that the waiver detecting bill Half the money should be deposited within a month, and before the plaintiff's trial, the remaining money was to be submitted to the surety bench that the FIR filed against it was canceled after a thorough investigation, and that notice was issued under the Electricity Act, 1910 Under section 24 (1) of the Act, its meter was not given before disconnection Accuracy records revealed that the FIR against the plaintiff in connection with the theft of electricity Was not delayed but only cancellation was recommended. In this case, the order was temporarily lacking. In this case the question of fact could not be decided without recording the evidence. The order of the first appellate court was appropriate. And the court accepted the plaintiff's request to deposit half of the money right away. An arbitrary relief was already granted to the plaintiff in order to present the illicit tracking bill and the surety bonds for the remainder, and no illegal or material irregularities were found in the unidentified order.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
