JUDGMENT 1. - This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the appeal late order dated 21.7.1993 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Udaipur thereby partly allowing appeal against the order dated 6.7.1993 passed by the then Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur City (South) who had disallowed the application for grant of temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff-non-petitioner. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this petition are as follows:- The plaintiff, who is non-petitioner, filed a suit for injunction in the trial Court against the defendants, who are presently petitioners, with the averments that he was consuming energy (electricity) supplied by the defendant-R.S.E.B. for operation of his industrial activities since 1978 who was granted 142 H.P. connection and that the defendant-licensee (R.S.E.B.), under the agreement entered into between the parties for supply of electricity for consumption by the plaintiff-consumer, was also under obligation to have supplied, affixed and maintained a correct meter thereby showing consumption of the electricity by the consumer but it was alleged that the plaintiff noticed that the meter fixed in the premises of the plaintiff for recording of the consumption of the energy consumed by the plaintiff, on 7.1.1993, was dead/stopped showing no consumption of electricity and he, accordingly, informed defendant No. 3 about it on 8.1.1993 and 12.1.1993 respectively on telephone and also reminded on 14.1.1993 in writing that meter was stopped and, according, the same may be immediately replaced but the defendants did not take any care. However, after previous recording of the consumption of the energy as recorded by the meter on 31.12.1992, the bill of electricity consumption for Rs. 15,263/- was issued on 13.1.1993 by the defendants and the same was deposited on 23.1.1993. However, in the month of January, 1993 and onwards, the meter being stopped, did not work recording any consumption of the energy and the meter was also not changed /replaced by the defendants inspite of request of the plaintiff and, at last, on 29.5.1993, the defendants sent a letter to the plaintiff that since an electricity meter of Order 5 Class was not available in the stock and, therefore, it was requested that the price of the meter may be deposited with the defendants so as to purchase a new meter for replacement of the defective meter. However, the defendants issued two bills of electricity consumption dated 4.2.1993 and 4.3.1993 for the alleged consumption of electricity for the months of January and February, 1993 respectively and the plaintiff deposited a total sum of Rs. 68,597/- under protest with the defendants. 3. It was also alleged that the bills dated 4.2.1993 and 4.3.1993 were prepared on the basis of average consumption of electricity energy by the plaintiff and recorded during the previous 12 months immediately preceding the months in which the meter was found stopped and ceased to function, in view of the provisions of Cl. 19(vii) of the General Condition of Supply of Electrical Energy by the R.S.E.B. 4. However, as regards the present controversy, the defendants sent two bills for the consumption of electrical energy by the plaintiff in the months of April and May, 1993 for a total sum of Rs. 54,562/- and the same was challenged by way of suit for permanent injunction along with temporary injunction application therefor to restrain the defendants from realising charges of electrical energy consumed by the plaintiff on the basis of average consumption so worked out mainly on the ground that the plaintiff was right from 7.1.993, inviting attention of the officers of the R.S.E.B. about the non-functioning of the meter and its replacement but no action was taken by them and, even then, wrongly in contravention of Sections 22, 24 & 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 as well as the General Conditions of the Supply of Electricity Consumption, issued electricity consumption bills for exorbitant amount without any justification and, accordingly, it was prayed that the defendants, be restrained from realising the disputed amount so worked out and to restrain from dis-connecting electricity connection of the plaintiff's premises. 5. However, the defendants maintained that the electricity consumption meter so placed at the plaintiff's premises, stopped functioning and the same was dead even as per admitted version of the plaintiff and, in view of these circumstances, the provisions of Sections 24(2) as well as 26(6) were not attracted and that, in the aforesaid circumstances, when the meter was dead /stopped and was in a perfectly non-functioning condition, the defendants were within their competence to have issued the disputed bills on the basis of previous average consumption of the electrical energy by the plaintiff. 6. 6. Besides, it was also averred that the plaintiff was served with notice dated 19.5.1993 which was received by him on 8.6.1983 to deposit the disputed amount which was legally payable to the defendants and, therefore, the demand of the disputed amount of the bills for the electricity consumption in the months of April and May, 1993 cannot be deemed to be illegal and unauthorised and, therefore, the R.S.E.B., being a public undertaking, cannot he restrained from legal recovery of the disputed amount which is otherwise likely to cause irreparable injury to the Board and, therefore, there was a serious dispute raised by the defendants against issue of any temporary injunction. Besides, it was also prayed that since the electricity connector if the plaintiff premises was already disconnected and so, in absence of payment, the same could not he restored. Accordingly, vide his impugned order the learned trial Judge, while holding that the principles necessary for issue of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff were not established in his favour and hence rejected the application. 7. However, in the appeal preferred there against, the learned appellate Judge disagreeing with the findings arrived at by the trial Court, while holding that all the three necessary principles for issue of temporary injunction were established in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and, accordingly, the appeal was accepted, setting aside the impugned order of rejection of the application for temporary injunction passed by the trial Court and it was ordered that in case the plaintiff deposits the amount of electricity consumption as per the demand raised by the R.S.E.B. upto 7.5.1993, even under a protest so that in case of his success in the suit the same could be adjusted against future dues and also deposits the amount of consumption for the period from 8.5.1993 to 22.6.1993 limited to the extent of minimum guarantee of consumption of the electricity with further undertaking to pay all arrears found due at the time of final judgment, the R.S.E.B. shall install a working meter in the plaintiff's premises and the electricity connection shall be immediately restored. He shall also be liable to pay henceforth all charges /dues of consumption as recorded in the meter regularly. Hence, a temporary injunction in the aforesaid terms was granted giving rise to the present petition by the petitioners. 8. He shall also be liable to pay henceforth all charges /dues of consumption as recorded in the meter regularly. Hence, a temporary injunction in the aforesaid terms was granted giving rise to the present petition by the petitioners. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has agitated grievance against the impugned order mainly on the ground that the meter fixed for recording the consumption of the electrical energy by the plaintiff-non-petitioner was found to be dead since its disc was non-functional and the defendants, on being informed about it, subsequently, from the side of defendants, it was informed to the plaintiff-consumer that necessary charges for procuring a new meter be deposited and, accordingly, in absence of replacement of the dead end non-functional meter, the plaintiff-consumer went on consuming the electrical energy supplied by the defendants and, accordingly, since there was no fault in the working and the recording of the electricity consumption by it and, instead, the same was dead/stopped and, resultantly, this dispute was not covered by the provisions of sub-Section (6) of Section 26 of the Electricity Act, 1910 since it did not relate to incorrectness of reading recorded by the meter installed as per the provisions of sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and, since, it was not a case in which the meter had ceased to be correct thereby requiring opinion of the Electrical Inspector calling upon him to estimate the amount of the energy supplied to a consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during the period not exceeding six months, as the meter shall not, in the opinion of such Inspector, have been correct. On the contrary, his further submission is that since the dispute and difference arisen between the parties was not covered by the aforesaid provisions and, instead, the provisions of General Conditions of Supply and Scale of Miscellaneous Charges relating to the Supply of Electricity framed by the R.S.E.B. and gazetted on 14.6.1964.being applicable, according to Condition No. 19 of the said General Conditions, in the event of the meter being out of order i.e., burnt/stopped or having ceased to function (except percentage of defect) for any reason during any month/months the consumption for that month/months shall be assessed by the billing authority or by the vigilance Checking Officer, as the case may be, in the manner prescribed thereunder. It is prescribed thereunder that the quantity of electricity supplied during the period in which the meter stopped/burnt/ceased to function, shall be determined by taking average of the consumption recorded during the three months or twelve months, whichever is higher, immediately preceding the month in which the said meter stopped/burnt/ceased to function. 9. Accordingly, his further submission is that the plaintiff-non-petitioner wrongly referred the dispute for the opinion of the Electrical Inspector in absence of non-application of provisions of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and, instead, the defendants have rightly worked out the estimated consumption of the electricity by the plaintiff-non-petitioner on the basis of average so worked out and the learned lower appellate judge fell into a serious error while setting aside the order passed by the trial Court on 6.10.1993 and, instead, entertaining the plea of the plaintiff-non-petitioner against the disputed demand raised by the defendants with a view to escape from liability to pay the amount of arrears for the disputed period so held in the impugned order passed by the learned lower appellate Judge. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner, on the basis of provisions of Rule 57(4) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 as well as sub-Sections (1), (2) & (6) of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 while reiterating all the averments of the application for temporary injunction, maintained that the plaintiff had already deposited excess amount while depositing a sum of Rs. 68,597/-. 68,597/-. The meter was found to-be stopped and non-functional as early as on 7.1.1993 and, immediately, the defendants were informed about it and they kept sleeping over this matter before and, lastly, they informed as late as on 29.5.1993 that necessary charges for procuring a new meter be deposited and so, his further contention is that during the disputed period, as borne out of the impugned order of the lower appellate Court covered between 8.5.1993 to 22.6.1993, there could not have been any justification for compelling the plaintiff-non-petitioner to deposit full amount on the basis of average consumption of the electricity so worked out by the provisions as against the guaranteed consumption of electricity period during the said period and, therefore, the plaintiff had already deposited excess amount beginning from January, 1993 to April, 1993 and, therefore, the defendants cannot be aggrieved by the impugned order and, besides, further compliance with the impugned order, further undertaking has been given by the plaintiff to deposit all the arrears, if any, in case so adjudicated in the final judgment. 11. Therefore, while relying on the decision rendered in Rajinder Singh v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, 1991 (1) CCC 477 and the Circular No. RSEB/CE (M&P/F.3 (47)/89/90/D2880 dated 16.3.1990 issued by the R.S.E.B., it has been further submitted that the provisions of the General Conditions of Supply so prescribed by the R.S.E.B. cannot be allowed to run counter to the specific provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 as well as Electricity Supply Act, 1948 or modification thereof and, consequently, his submission is that the impugned order is wholly just and legal which warrants no interference. 12. On the review of the aforesaid successive events and the matter under dispute and so also the rival contentions of both the parties, it is indisputable that the meter was supplied by the R.S.E.B. and the plaintiff is the consumer. 12. On the review of the aforesaid successive events and the matter under dispute and so also the rival contentions of both the parties, it is indisputable that the meter was supplied by the R.S.E.B. and the plaintiff is the consumer. He was regularly paying electricity consumption dues to the Board and, it was on 7.1.1993 that the meter supplied by the R.S.E.B. itself, under the provisions of sub-Section (1) of Section 26, was found to be stopped/dead and the plaintiff repeatedly, telephonically and in writing as well informed the defendants to initiate necessary action so as to replace the dead meter but it did not activate the defendants before 29.5.1993 and, lastly, within this long period the defendants, instead of pouring and installing a new meter for which they are alleged to be charging meter rent at the rate of 350 per month did not replace the dead meter and, as observed by the learned lower appellate Judge as well, they allowed this state of affairs to continue during the disputed period as well. The present dispute has been shortened to a large extent by the learned lower appellate Judge and since the plaintiff has already deposited the amount of the consumption of electrical energy on the basis of minimum guaranteed consumption agreement between the parties for the period from 8.5.1993 to 22.6.1993 as well and, in view of this fact, the plaintiff also having complied with thereby undertaking to pay arrears of electricity consumption dues, if any, ordered in the final judgment itself and, in these circumstances, there is no scope for grievance to the defendants. This is the indifference and callous conduct on the part of the officers of the R.S.E.B. itself that they did not care for replacement of the meter found to be dead as early as on 7.1.1993, and instead, they allowed this state of affairs to continue for an inordinately long period giving rise to this dispute. 13. This is the indifference and callous conduct on the part of the officers of the R.S.E.B. itself that they did not care for replacement of the meter found to be dead as early as on 7.1.1993, and instead, they allowed this state of affairs to continue for an inordinately long period giving rise to this dispute. 13. As regards the dispute as to whether the defendants should be allowed to raise electrical consumption bills on the basis of average consumption so worked out or in terms of, the final opinion and estimated consumption worked out by the Electricity Inspector as envisaged by the provisions of sub-Section (6) of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, for the present, needless to observe that there is a serious dispute to be adjudicated by the trial Court and, resultantly, there is a prima facie case to be tried, existing in favour of the plaintiff-non-petitioner. 14. In view of these circumstances, as also held by the learned lower appellate Court, the facts of existence of balance of convenience, in case no temporary injunction is granted, in absence of corresponding inconvenience to the defendants as well as the resultant irreparable injury in case the plaintiff-non-petitioner is still, even after a gross mis-conduct and indifference having been established on the part of the defendants, is required to pay disputed amount, being in favour of the plaintiff-non-petitioner, the learned lower appellate Judge does not appear to have either acted illegally or with material irregularity in granting temporary injunction in the aforesaid terms in favour of the plaintiff-non-petitioner and hence it warrants no interference in this revision petition. 15. The petitioners have kept this dispute alive since 1993 and it shows that the defendants are not vigilant enough to vouchsafe the financial interest of the Board and, accordingly, though the circumstances warrant that the trial Court ought to have accorded priority to the disposal of the suit but, so far as the present petition is concerned, looking to the nature of the dispute, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the same is liable to be dismissed. 16. Consequently, this petition is found to be devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed and the impugned order of the lower appellate Court is hereby affirmed. 16. Consequently, this petition is found to be devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed and the impugned order of the lower appellate Court is hereby affirmed. However, the trial Court is directed that as far as possible this suit should be finally disposed of within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.This Revision Petition along with the connected stay petition is dismissed accordingly.Revision dismissed. *******