Find a Lawyer

WAPDA-Respondent

Civil Revision No. 522 of 1974, decided on 13th September, 1980.

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-

S. 115 & O. XXXIX, r. 1 Temporary injunction--Petitioner default ing in making payment of bill to WAPDA for alleged consumption of electricity and seeking injunction from civil Court for restraining WAPDA from disconnecting electric supply-Observation of Civil Judge duly concurred in by District Judge as to payment of specific disputed amount not causing irreparable loss to petitioner, held, unexception able-Petitioner in event of suit being decreed in his favour could claim compensation-Reasoning advanced and discretion exercised by lower Courts in refusing to grant stay order neither fanciful nor arbitrary.-[Injunction].

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908r-

-- S. 115 & O. XXXIX, r. 1-Temporary injunction-Discretion -----Discretion exercised by subordinate Courts while disposing of applica tion for temporary injunction neither arbitrary nor perverse--High Court in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction, held, would be reluctant to interfere with impugned orders.-[Injunction].

Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan and another P L D 1970 S C 139 ref.

S. Fayyaz Hussan Qapir for Petitioner. Aziz Ahmad Bajwa for Respondent. Date of hearing : 13th September, 1980.

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 1-9-6-1974 passed by learned District Judge, Sahiwal, whereby he rejected the appeal and confirmed the order dated 25-3-1974 of the learned Civil Judge, Sahiwal.

2. The petitioner installed a tube-well in the land situated in Chak No. 162/9-L. District Sahiwal and defaulted in making payment of the bill to WAPDA for the alleged consumption of electricity. The petitioner appre-hending disconnection of the electricity, instituted civil suit and sought permanent injunction restraining respondents-defendants from disconnecting electric supply to the tube-well. The learned Civil Judge vide his order dated 25-3-1974 held that the payment of the outstanding amount would not cause irreparable loss to the petitioner and rejected his application for temporary injunction. The aforementioned order was assailed in appeal but the same was dismissed on-16-6-1974 by the learned District Judge, Sahiwal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the land in dispute in which tube-well was installed was taken over by the Military Authorities during 1971 War and the land was devastated by Military operations. It was asserted that petitioner could not reap the harvests and remained unable to pay the outstanding amount. He argued that the balance of convenience tilted in fact; in favour of the petitioner and the Courts below did not advert to this aspect of the case.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the arguments advanced by his adversary hardly attracted the provisions of section 115, C. P. C. calling for interference in the impugned orders. It was submitted that the concurrent findings of the subordinate Courts are neither illegal nor suffer from material irregularity which may justify interfer ence by this Court.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the obser vation of the learned Civil Judge duly concurred by the District Judge that the payment of the specific disputed amount would not cause irreparable loss to the petitioner is unexceptionable. It is true that in the event the suit is decreed in his favour, he could claim compensation. The reasoning advanced and discretion exercised by the learned Civil Judge and District Judge in refusing to grant stay in this case can neither be described fanciful nor arbitrary.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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