JUDGMENT - ASHOK AGARWAL, J.:--Appellant is the original defendant-Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. By the present appeal it seeks to impugn an interlocutory order passed by Single Judge (A.P. Shah, J.) on 19th of August, 1995 in Notice of Motion No. 2735 of 1995 in S.C. Suit No. 2936 of 1995 (reported in 1996(1) Bom.C.R. 288 ), whereby the defendants have been directed to reconnect the telephone connection of the plaintiff who is a doctor by profession. The reason given by the defendants for disconnecting the plaintiffs telephone is that the plaintiffs father Shri V.N. Manek has fallen in arrears of telephone charges in respect of his telephone No. 5680227. In regard to the arrears of Shri V.N. Manek his aforesaid telephone has already been disconnected. As far as plaintiffs telephone No. 5603314 is concerned, there are no arrears as all the bills have been paid. It is the contention of the defendants that it is entitled to disconnect the telephone connection of the plaintiff for the reason that his father has fallen in arrears in respect of his telephone connection. Reliance is sought to be placed on Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraphs Rules, which recites, as under : "443. Default of payment--If, on or before the due date, the rent or other charges in respect of the telephone service provided are not paid by the subscriber in accordance with these rules, or bills for charges in respect of calls (local and trunk) or phonograms or other dues from the subscriber are not duly paid by him, any telephone or telephones or any telex service rented by him may be disconnected without notice. The telephone or the telex so disconnected may if the Telegraph Authority thinks fit, be restored, if the defaulting subscriber pays the outstanding dues and the reconnection fees together with the rental for such portion of the intervening period (during which the telephone or telex remains disconnected) as may be prescribed by the Telephone Authority from time to time. The subscriber shall pay all the above charges within such period as may be prescribed by the Telegraph Authority from time to time." Reference is made to Rule 2(pp) which defines subscriber as follows: "2. Definitions ..... 2. (pp) "subscriber" means a person to whom a telephone service has been provided by means of an installation under these rules or under an agreement." 2. Definitions ..... 2. (pp) "subscriber" means a person to whom a telephone service has been provided by means of an installation under these rules or under an agreement." 2. In our judgment, even if the aforesaid Rule 443 is held to be good and enforceable the same cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. The rule, at best, will entitle the defendants to disconnect one or more telephone connections in respect of a subscriber. It will not entitle it to disconnect telephone connection of one subscriber for the default of another subscriber. In the circumstances, we find that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, which essentially is of a discretionary nature, cannot be faulted. The appeal, in the circumstances, is found to be devoid of merit and the same is summarily dismissed. Expedite the issue of certified copy. Appeal dismissed.