ORAL JUDGMENT :- Heard the advocates for the appellants and the respondent. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the respondent and also applied therein under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code for grant of mandatory injunction, directing the respondents to restore the telephone connection bearing No. 772956 and 772957 at the new premises forthwith, and restrain the defendants from sending further bills of the closed telephone connection bearing the same numbers. This application was opposed by the defendants on various grounds. However, this application of the plaintiff was allowed by the trial court after hearing the parties and defendants/the appellants herein were directed to restore the aforesaid two telephone connections at the new premises as desired by the plaintiff, within seven days and further prohibitory order was granted as per the other prayer in the said application. The present appeal is directed against the said order. 3. Counsel for the appellant made three submissions. Firstly according to him, the booth where the respondent/plaintiff wants to have S.T.D. connection should be at a place which does not violate any law and that it is not on any public property, but it is within the shop No.1 as described in the agreement for sale/lease or licence, copy of which was furnished to the appellants by the respondent. 4. His second contention was that whatever are lacunas in this document and defects in the agreement, they should be removed e.g., absence of any date in the agreement, period of lease etc. His third submission was that under Rule 169 of the Telephone Rules, which is quoted as below, the plaintiff/respondent should pay the amount of Rs. 34,000/- which was due from her on the date of filing of the suit, together with further amount up to date of order of this Court as per the charges that will be levied by the appellants against the respondent. The said rule is reproduce as under: "169 (i) If the telephone dues are not paid by the subscriber on or before the due date, his telephone is disconnected and it will normally be restored on the payment of full amount of the dues with the reconnection fee as prescribed in para 66 in P and T Manual Volume XII. The subscriber is also liable to pay the rent for the period the telephone remained disconnected. The subscriber is also liable to pay the rent for the period the telephone remained disconnected. If the dues referred to above are not paid within six months from the date of disconnection, the connection should be treated as permanently closed and will not be restored. Thereafter the request of the party for restoration should be treated as a request for a new telephone connection. These instructions will apply both to Flat and Measured Rate systems of charging the rentals. (ii) The reconnection fee is chargeable in all cases of restoration when a telephone is rightly disconnected and is actually disconnected. (iii) While deciding about the rate of reconnection fee and the period of six months referred to above, the date of disconnection of telephone will be excluded. (iv) (1) In cases the closing Advice Note has already been issued the reconnection will be allowed only after the recovery of outstanding dues, reconnection fee and the rent for intervening period." So far as the first two contentions of the appellants are concerned, this requirement about documents and S.T.D. booth and not violating any provisions of other law and not being in a public property, the counsel for respondent have no objection. However, dispute about arrears of amount which is being claimed by the appellant from the respondent on the basis of aforesaid Rule No. 169, the counsel for the appellant contended that as per this Rule, six months after the disconnection, the permanent disconnection occurs or permanent closure of the telephone occurs, but if the line is to be restored and revived, the subscriber will have to pay charges to the appellant even during the period after the permanent closure till the restoration. Therefore, according to him, if a line is disconnected on 1st January, for non payment of the bill, it becomes permanently closed after six months and if application for restoration is made after two years, the subscriber will have to pay not only the arrears of bill at the time of disconnection, but rental and other charges for the six months and same charges for the further period of two years. It is very difficult to accept this submission because, if as per this Rule, the permanent closure occurs, that amounts to severance of relationship between the supplier and consumer. It is very difficult to accept this submission because, if as per this Rule, the permanent closure occurs, that amounts to severance of relationship between the supplier and consumer. If the relationship ends, then the supplier has no right to demand anything more during the period of permanent closure till the application for restoration is granted. Therefore, this contention of the counsel for the appellant has to be rejected. 5. On the date of disconnection, in the instant case, the plaintiff was in arrears of Rs. 10,184/- apart from the payment of Rs. 5557/- made by the plaintiff. Therefore, according to the appellant, the liability of the plaintiff on the date of disconnection was more than Rs. 15/16000, out of which he paid only Rs. 5557/-, the trial court has given a finding that this dispute has to be solved at the time of final hearing of the suit on merits. 6. So far as the stage at which the injunction order was passed, what appears to be is that appellants claim was only for Rs. 10,184/- and the actual calculations from the six bills from the two telephone numbers (3 x 2) are made, the amount appears to be 8800 and odd. However, accepting the figure of 10,184/- given by the counsel for the appellant, the payment of Rs. 5557/- has to be held to be towards these dues. Therefore I pass the following order: 7. The respondent to remove the defects in the lease agreement as pointed out above i.e. give the date of the agreement, the duration of the agreement. The respondent also to clarify that the S.T.D. booth will be inside the shop No.1 and not in front and that the S.T.D. booth will not be in encroachment or illegal erection and will not violate the P and T Manual and so far as the payment is concerned, the respondent is directed to deposit balance of Rs. 4627/- within three weeks from today. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. This is the modification of the order granted by the trial court. Order accordingly.