SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J. ( 1 ) RESPONDENT herein filed a suit for a declaration that the Bill dated 12-2-1988 issued by the petitioners is illegal, invalid and ultra vires and as such not binding on the plaintiff. Suit seeks a restraint on the 2nd defendant from recovering the said amount and also seeks restoration of the electric installation etc. In the suit an Interim Application was filed for an order of temporary injunction against the recovery of the amount stated in pursuance of the impugned bill and for a direction to restore the supply of electrical energy to the plaintiff. ( 2 ) THE demand under challenge is in respect of Rs. 12,17,992. 50, allegedly caused by the theft of electrical energy by the plaintiff. The allegation of theft is seriously denied by the plaintiff and according to the plaintiff the meter itself was defective and the explosion caused at the installation, when complained of, resulted in the impugned demand being sent by the 2nd defendant; electric supply was also cut off, at the same time. It is unnecessary to state more, in detail, of the respective contentions. The trial Court granted the prayer of the plaintiff for an order of temporary injunction and the said order was affirmed by the lower appellate Court. ( 3 ) SRI Sundaraswamy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that, (a) the suit itself was not maintainable, because, (i) the plaintiff has the ample remedy of a departmental appeal under Regulation 41 of the Electricity Supply regulations against the impugned demand; (ii) as per Section 5 of the Karnataka Electricity board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'), before filing any suit, entire amount demanded has to be deposited with the prescribed authority; (b) the theft of energy by the plaintiff was admitted, as is clear from the mahazar drawn on 11-2-1988; (c) an unconditional order of temporary injunction, without any terms being imposed on the plaintiff, is contrary to the well established principles governing the making of an order of temporary injunction. ( 4 ) SRI Shivaraj Patil, learned Counsel for therespondent, brought to my notice the order of this Court in CRP No. 1134 of 1988 decided on 3-10-1988 (1989 (1) Kar. L. J. 306) wherein the suit in question was held maintainable. ( 4 ) SRI Shivaraj Patil, learned Counsel for therespondent, brought to my notice the order of this Court in CRP No. 1134 of 1988 decided on 3-10-1988 (1989 (1) Kar. L. J. 306) wherein the suit in question was held maintainable. This order of Chandrakantharaj Urs, J. , is between the same parties and is in respect of the same suit and hence it will be inappropriate for me to consider the contention (a) of Sri Sundaraswamy. ( 5 ) THE trial Court proceeded to accept the plaintiffs case regarding the explosion, alleged to have occurred on 11-2-1988 and this finding was accepted by the lower appellate Court. Sri sundaraswamy, however, referred to the mahazar referred to above, to contend that, admission of theft of the energy by the plaintiff was found in the mahazar duly signed on behalf of the plaintiff and therefore, discussion on other aspects of the case becomes irrelevant at this juncture. I have perused the copy of the said mahazar. I refrain from expressing a definite opinion, since, it may affect the respective cases of the parties, at the trial of the suit. ( 6 ) REGARDING the contention (c), Sri Shivaraj Patil pointed out that the Courts below considered this aspect and having regard to the circumstances of the case, Courts below found it just not to impose any condition on the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court has given two reasons in this regard: (i) the amount demanded being quite heavy and if the plaintiff is compelled to deposit it or furnish security for it, it would be imposing an unreasonable burden on the plaintiff, and (ii) admittedly a security deposit of rupees nine lakhs has been furnished by the plaintiff towards the electrical installation, and that the plaintiff is running a factory and has valuable machineries, etc. which will be sufficient to enable the recovery of the amount demanded in case the suit falls. ( 7 ) IN the course of arguments, it was brought to my notice the security furnished by the plaintiff was Rs. 5. 58 lakhs in cash and Rs. 4. 74 lakhs by bank guarantee. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that this security was towards the normal security to be furnished for electrical connection and has nothing to do with the impugned demand; therefore, the Courts below, it was contended, relied on an irrelevant factor. 5. 58 lakhs in cash and Rs. 4. 74 lakhs by bank guarantee. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that this security was towards the normal security to be furnished for electrical connection and has nothing to do with the impugned demand; therefore, the Courts below, it was contended, relied on an irrelevant factor. ( 8 ) THERE is no dispute that the security of Rs. 10. 59 lakhs referred to above has nothing to do with the demand under challenge; said security is the normal security to be furnished by any similar consumer of electricity. The principles governing the grant of an order of temporary injunction have been explained by this Court in several decisions. This court has preferred to apply the test of balance of convenience, as against the test of prima facie case, in this regard. If the test, whether plaintiff has a better chance of success than the defendant in the suit, is applied, at this stage of the suit, the Court will have to, practically, hold a 'minitrial' in respect of the substantial issues and any expression of opinion on such issues, at this stage, is held to be not proper. Though, the Court, at this stage has to consider the nature of the plaintiffs claim and examine whether, the case pleaded by the plaintiff involves a triable issue or not, it cannot venture upon to decide definitely on such issues. At any rate, it will be inappropriate for the High Court to express any opinion, on such a question, as, it is likely to be used by one of the parties to his advantage, before the trial Court. The salutary rule is to find out the balance of convenience and see whether, after the grant of an order of temporary injunction, if the suit fails, how the defendant can be compensated or while making an order of temporary injunction against the defendant, what sort of safeguard should be provided, to him in case, ultimately the suit is dismissed. In Life Insurance Corporation v Bangalore l. I. C. Employees Housing Co-op. Society Ltd. , 1988 (2) Kar. L. J. 455, it was observed that the imposing terms while making an order of temporary injunction was a salutary practice and should not be lightly ignored. In Life Insurance Corporation v Bangalore l. I. C. Employees Housing Co-op. Society Ltd. , 1988 (2) Kar. L. J. 455, it was observed that the imposing terms while making an order of temporary injunction was a salutary practice and should not be lightly ignored. At p. 473, it is observed by Shyamsundar, J. thus:"the apparently well supported principle of making an interlocutory order subject to terms appears to have fallen into disuse. In our Courts, I need hardly state' that it is time that we emulate an extremely considerate and well conceived principle enunciated by Courts in England of making an interlocutory injunction on terms so that the defendant, or even a plaintiff who suffers by the grant or refusal of an unjustified interlocutory injunction is not exposed to further bouts of litigation to seek re-compensc for his travails and tribulations suffered at the hands of a free wheeling plaintiff indulging in a no holds barred venture. " ( 9 ) THE demand involved herein is of Rs. 12,17,992. 50. Plaintiff is running a factory and one cannot be assured of its assets being unencumbered. The existing security is, of only rs. 10,59,000/- and even if this security is taken into consideration, there will be a short fall of about Rs. 2/- lakhs. But the aforesaid security is independent of the impugned demand and is expected to continue with the defendants towards the supply of electricity and other installations connected thereto. Therefore, the interest of the defendants will have to be safeguarded by imposing a suitable condition, for the continuation of the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court. ( 10 ) SRI Shivaraj Patil stated that the suit is ready for trial and since the supply of electricity has been restored by the order of the trial Court, this Court at this stage should not direct the imposition of any condition. Having come to the conclusion that, the Courts below have failed to apply a relevant principle while exercising the power of making the order of temporary injunction, it is appropriate that, this Court should interfere even at this stage. Having come to the conclusion that, the Courts below have failed to apply a relevant principle while exercising the power of making the order of temporary injunction, it is appropriate that, this Court should interfere even at this stage. ( 11 ) HAVING regard to the principle stated above and the facts pertaining to the plaintiff relied upon by the lower appellate Court, I consider that the interest of the defendants will be protected, if the plaintiff is directed to furnish a bank guarantee or any acceptable security to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for a sum of rs. 4/- lakhs (rupees four lakhs only), within eight weeks from today, failing which the order of temporary injunction now in operation shall stand vacated. The plaintiff shall also continue to pay the current bills, promptly as and when due. ( 12 ) THE revision petition is accordingly allowed without any order as to costs. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .