Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 21 of 1980, decided on 2nd February, 1980.

---.- O. XXXIX, r. 2-Temporary injunction-Restoration of electric connection directed by Civil Judge on application for injunction in civil suit---During pendency of civil suit applicant served with electric bill of about Rs. 2,14,000..--another Civil Judge in second suit ordering applicant to deposit amount of electric bill and further ordering electric connection not to be disconnected till further, orders--Order passed in second suit, held, independent order and justifiably passed--Apprehension of applicant being not protected by injunction issued in first suit---Without any substance-Injunction issued in first suit, held, would survive on its own force unless vacated.-[Injunction].

Sohail Muzaffar for Appellant.

Saeed Ahmad for Respondent.

This revision application is directed against the order dated 23rd December. 1979 passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Karachi. The said order came to be passed in the background of the following, facts.

2. The electric connection to the appellant's ice factory was dis connected by the respondent on 10th April, 1979 pursuant to a letter earlier issued on 9th April, 1979, which mentioned that the electric motor installed at the premises had been tampered with urauthorisedly. Aggrieved by the above action of the respondents a Suit No. 1419 of 1979 was filed by the applicant in the Court of learned civil Judge and on his injunction application an order dated 14th April. 1979 was passed directing that the connection should be restored. While this suit was pending, the respondent served the applicant with an electric bill demanding about Rs. 2,14,000. The applicant thereupon filed a second Suit No. 1755 of 1979 in the Court of the learned XVI, Civil Judge Karachi, and applied for injunction. The learned Civil Judge, by his order dated 14th July, 1979, directed the applicant to deposit the amount of bill in Court and ordered that the electric connection should no: be disconnected by the respondent till further orders. The applicant, being aggrieved by the said order, filed a miscellaneous appeal in the Court of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Karachi. which ultimately came to be heard and disposed of as per impugned order.

3. Mr. Suhail Muzaffar, learned counsel for the applicant, contended that since a mandatory injunction had already been granted in Suit No. 1449 of 1979, the learned Civil Judge should not have passed any order on 14th July, 1979 putting the applicant to terms. He stated that such an order could only have been passed in Suit No. 1449 of 1979 and not in Suit No. 1755 of 1979 as the two suits were riot consolidated.

4. Mr. Saeed Ahmad learned counsel for the respondents, contended that this revision application is misconceived. The applicant had invoked the jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge by making an application under Order XXXIX, rule 1, C. P. C. The Suit No. 1755 of 1979 was independent suit based on a fresh cause of action having nothing to do with the complaint of the applicant in his earlier Suit No. 1449 of 1979 In the circumstances, it was contended, that if the applicant thought chat he was sufficiently protected by the order dated 14th April, 1979 passed in Suit No. 1449 of 1979, he should not have applied for a fresh order of stay in the second sue. These contentions of the learned counsel fox the respondent have their apparent charm and force because the order passed by the learned Civil Judge dated 14th April, 1978 plainly shows that it was an independent order passed on the second suit of the applicant and since the applicant himself had asked for an injunction the learned Civil Judge was justified in granting a conditional cider of stay, as he did. If the learned counsel feels that the applicant is not protected by the order dated 14th April, 1979 passed in Suit No. 1449 of 1979, the apprehension is without any substance because teat order c was passed in a different suit and would survive on its force unless vacated. It was admitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the injunction application in Suit No. 1449 of 1979 is still pending and has not been disposed of. It will be open to the respondent to move the trial Court in Suit No. 1449 of 1979, if they are otherwise aggrieved. However, so far as this revision application is concerned, it has no merits and must fail, As a result of the above discussion the revision application is dismissed with costs.

K. M. A. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.