JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26th July, 1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Original Suit No. 2/98 by which the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 2. Brief facts of the case are the plaintiff-appellant is consumer of the respondent No. 1 (defendant No. 1) having the electric connection in the name of Sona Rubber Udyog. The account number of the plaintiff is MIP 702. The plaintiff alleged that a notice was issued by the Asst. Engineer of the respondent No. 1 on 6.2.97 stating that during inspection it was found that three industrial units Hencock Rubber Industries account No. MIP 33, Kalpatru Industries account No. MIP 36 and Sona Rubber Industries account No. MIP 702 are running in the same premises having common entrance and approach. The work of above three industrial connections carried out by one concern/proprietor. Therefore, as per the sub-clause (c) of condition No. 5 of the General conditions of supply all the connections are required to be clubbed together and, therefore, the plaintiff should make necessary arrangement for clubbing of three connections within a period of one month. The plaintiff gave reply to the above notice dated 6.2.47 on 5th March, 1997 stating that three industrial units are not situated in one premises nor the plaintiff is proprietor of the above three units and raised certain objections. It was also stated in the plaint that all the three firms have no relation with each other, all the three firms are having separate sales tax number and they are assessed by the income tax department separately and all the three industrial units are registered by the department of the State of Rajasthan as separate units, therefore, the connections cannot be clubbed. The plaintiff apprehending disconnection for non-compliance of the notice dated 6.2.97 and subsequent notice dated 6.2.98 filed the suit for injunction seeking relief against the clubbing of the electric connection of the three units by the respondent No. 1 and sought against the disconnection. 3. The respondent No. 1 (defendant No. 1) submitted written statement and stated that all the three units are situated in one premises and working for the benefit of the plaintiff. It was stated that there is only one way to reach to the three units. 3. The respondent No. 1 (defendant No. 1) submitted written statement and stated that all the three units are situated in one premises and working for the benefit of the plaintiff. It was stated that there is only one way to reach to the three units. It was also stated that even in case there are different persons having common interest even then the electric connection can be clubbed. The defendant further submitted that to avoid tax liability the three units were created by the plaintiff and it causes loss to the respondent-Board also. According to sub-clause (4) of the Condition 5 of the General Condition of Supply and Scale of miscellaneous charges relating to the supply of Electricity these connections are required to be clubbed together and in case of non-compliance by the consumer, the board has power to disconnect the electric supply of the plaintiff as well as his units. 4. The trial Court framed the issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. Issue No. 1 is that whether plaintiff's and defendants No. 2 and 3's factory owners are different, issue No. 2 is that whether the defendant-respondent No. 1 has no right to club the electric connections of plaintiff defendant Nos. 2 and 3, issue No. 3 is that whether plaintiff is entitled for relief of injunction and issue No. 4 is that whether the suit is not maintainable in civil court. 5. In the trial Court plaintiff appeared as PW-1 whereas defendant No. 1 produced DW-1 Madan Lal. The trial Court after hearing the arguments held that plaintiff failed to prove that the owners of the three industrial units are different. While deciding issue No. 2, the trial Court held that all the three industrial units are situated in one premises and the defendant is entitled to club the electric connections in view of the condition No. 5C4. In addition to above, the trial Court held that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of the decision given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board & others v. Ashwani Kumar, 1997 (3) Supreme 615 . In view of the findings, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 6. In view of the findings, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the approach of the trial Court was absolutely erroneous and the trial Court has wrongly framed the issues. An application for amendment of issue was also submitted by the plaintiff under Order 14 Rule Civil Procedure Code with a request to recast the issue Nos. 1 and 2 and to frame issue that whether the electric connections of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are situated in one premises and the burden be placed upon the defendant. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on 10th Sept, 1998. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is clear from the facts mentioned in the suit as well as from the case of the defendant and from the documents produced by the parties that the point in controversy between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 was whether the defendant No. 1 has right to club the electric connections of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 while exercising power under the conditions framed by the board, particularly, in view of the sub-clause (4) of condition No. 5. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the trial Court has wrongly interpreted the definition of the premises given in the conditions framed by the board and according to learned counsel for the appellant the plaintiff has placed on record the title deed of the premises of the plaintiff, which clearly show that the connection in dispute of Sona Rubber Industries was sanctioned for a particular defined field consisting of building also. The trial Court instead of examining the definition of premises given in the condition based his finding on the basis of some assumptions. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the suit of the plaintiff is not barred in view of the fact that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Ashwani Kumar (supra) and has no application in view of the condition No. 31 of the conditions framed by the board and there is no provision for approaching the settlement committee for determination of the dispute, which is subject-matter of the suit. 8. v. Ashwani Kumar (supra) and has no application in view of the condition No. 31 of the conditions framed by the board and there is no provision for approaching the settlement committee for determination of the dispute, which is subject-matter of the suit. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial Court has rightly held that the connections of the three industrial units are given in one premises for which the trial Court has discussed the entire facts of the case, which clearly shows that there is only one way having one gate to reach to the different three units and in case a narrower meaning will be given of the premises then it will result into a situation that the consumers will get the advantage of their right to have different units with different names of business by including family members as partners of the industrial unit. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that in view of the provision of condition 31 of the conditions mentioned above, the matter can be decided by the settlement committee for which the plaintiff can approach the settlement committee. 9. First of all it is to be seen whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under condition 31 of the conditions and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashwini Kurnar's case (supra). Condition No. 31 relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent is as under :31. Dispute : In the event of any difference or dispute arising between the Board and Consumer in respect of any matter connected with the supply which cannot be determined by these conditions or by the terms of any agreement between the Board and the Consumer, and in the event of any difference or dispute arising as to the interpretation of these conditions or of the terms of any agreement between the Board and the Consumer, the matter shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act. However, in cases of revenue matters, the consumer may approach the 'Consumers' Dues Settlement Committees' constituted by the Board at various levels. The consumer could, therefore, approach the Consumers' Dues Settlement Committee at the initial stage for seeking relief to reduce burden of litigation without affecting his right of making reference to the competent Court in the event no settlement is arrived at. The consumer could, therefore, approach the Consumers' Dues Settlement Committee at the initial stage for seeking relief to reduce burden of litigation without affecting his right of making reference to the competent Court in the event no settlement is arrived at. Its scope, constitution and financial powers are indicated below:- A bare perusal of the condition 31 it is clear that it contains two parts, first part provides that any difference or dispute in respect of any matter connected with the supply which cannot be determined by these conditions or by the terms of any agreement between the Board and consumer or any matter relating to the interpretation of any of the provision of the Act. Therefore, this part of the condition 31 nowhere provides that in case any dispute or difference with respect to the matters are acquired to be referred to any of the settlement committee or to arbitrator. It is not the case of the defendant that matter should have been referred to the arbitrator nor the defendant raised this type of objection at any stage. The only contention is that since the matter is referable to the settlement committee, therefore, suit is barred. But first part as mentioned above nowhere provides for such reference to the settlement committee for the grievance. The second part of the condition 31 provides very specifically that in case of revenue matters, the consumer may approach the 'Consumer Dues Settlement Committees' constituted by the Board at various levels. A bare reading of the above provision as well as subsequent condition Nos. 31.1 to 31.7 clearly shows that it has been named as 'Consumers Dues Settlement Committees' and the committees are constituted as per the amount involved. The appeal is provided under condition 31.6 and the review power is given under condition 31.7. These condition Nos. 31.1 to 31.7 also provide for settlement of dispute with respect to the financial powers. None of the other provision was referred by the learned counsel for the respondent under which the plaintiff can be asked to approach any committee constituted under any provision of law for settlement of the dispute, which is involved in this case. The matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashwini Kumar (supra) was with respect to the revenue matter only for which the committees were constituted under the statutory provisions. The matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashwini Kumar (supra) was with respect to the revenue matter only for which the committees were constituted under the statutory provisions. The committee was given power to decide the disputed cases including the cases arising out of the enforcement checking. The committee constituted by the board in that case was also having limited jurisdiction. In the above case, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the suit in the civil Court is barred, but here in this case, I do not find any provision for constitution of the settlement committee for the dispute, which has been raised in this case. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court on issue No. 4 is factually wrong and the trial Court has wrongly applied the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in this case. 10. The crucial question involved in the suit as well as appeal was with respect to the interpretation of the definition given for premises in the conditions. The definition of the condition given in condition No. 1 (P) of the conditions is as under : "(P) "Premises" means the area/portion of the building/shed/field etc., for which the electric connection has been applied for and sanctioned." A bare perusal of the above definition of premises it is clear that it can be (a) area (b) portion of the building (c) shed or (d) field. This definition is also exhaustive. In addition to above, it is the premises for which the electric connection has been applied for, by the consumer and sanctioned by the board. Here in this case, the learned trial judge has only taken into account that there is a one road leading to three industrial units and there is a gate over the approach road. Therefore, the learned trial Court held that this is one premises. It is clear from the letter Ex. 1 to 3 of the respondent No. 1 that three connections are separate connections having three different connection numbers, Hencock Rubber Industries account No. MIP No. 33, M/s. Kalpatru Industries account No. MIP 36 and Sona Rubber Industries account No. MIP 702. It is submitted that all the three connections were given at different lines. 1 to 3 of the respondent No. 1 that three connections are separate connections having three different connection numbers, Hencock Rubber Industries account No. MIP No. 33, M/s. Kalpatru Industries account No. MIP 36 and Sona Rubber Industries account No. MIP 702. It is submitted that all the three connections were given at different lines. The plaintiff placed on record the lease deed granted for Sona Rubber Industries by the State Government Ex.6, the copy of the lease deed Ex.7 granted in favour of Hencock Rubber Industries, which is also by the State Government. The neighbourhood is given in both the lease deeds of the two different premises. These documents show that the lease of Sona Rubber Industries is in favour of the Hencock Rubber Industries as proprietor of Sona Rubber Industries and lease in favour of the Hencock Rubber Industries is in favour of Bhuraram, Janki Devi, Madanlal, plaintiff Hetram and Ramesh Kumar. It is also not in dispute that connection was given for all the three different units in their own names and it has not been even stated by the defendants in their written statement that the consumer plaintiff or defendant Nos. 2 and 3 applied for electric connection for all the three units and the board sanctioned the different connections in the same premises. A bare perusal of the definition of the premises given in the conditions framed by the board clearly shows that premises can be treated separately even if it is a portion of a building or it may be even a shed or it may be a field only. As per the various conditions for sanction of the electric connection it is clear that before sanction of the electric connection a report is obtained by the Board with respect to the installation of electric appliances and, thereafter, appropriate order for electric connections are granted. It appears that board felt some difficulty in the matter of industrial and non-domestic connections and, therefore, sub-clause (c) in the Condition 5 was made so that no further industrial or non-domestic connection be issued in the same premises and in the same name and provisions were made with respect to the existing consumers under industrial category, who applies for new connection in same premises. Clause 4 of sub-clause (c) of Condition 5 is with respect to the running industrial and non-domestic units in the same premises, but working in same or different names and work is carried out by one concern or proprietor or if there are same partners common in different firms then the sub-clause (4) of clause (c) of Condition 5 permits boards to ask the consumer to club the load and for which consumers may apply to the board. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per the sub-clause (4) of clause (c) of Condition 5 even if there are different persons carrying on business in the name of two or more firms with common partners then also load is required to be clubbed and, therefore, the board was right in directing the plaintiff to club the electric connection. 11. The requirement of Clause (4) of sub-clause (c) of Condition 5 very clearly provides that it applies to the electric connection existing in the same premises. Here in this case, though issue was not framed properly, but both the parties were fully aware that claim of the respondent No. 1 is based upon the plea of their right under the above conditions. Since the defendant respondent No. 1 issued notice to change the existing state of affairs, therefore, burden was upon the respondent defendant to prove the fact that the three units named in the notice issued by the respondent No. 1 are running in the same premises and to prove this fact the defendant respondent No. 1 was required to prove by evidence that for all the three industrial units are situated in the same premises. Simply having a common way, having a gate over common way, keeping the key by one person having common partners, can be for various reasons, but these will not make the different premises as a single premise. 12. The reason given by the learned trial Court is not based upon the interpretation of definition of the premises, but based upon the assumption only. Even the reasons given by the Court below is based upon the consideration of one aspect of the matter only. If the reasoning given by the Court below is accepted then the more grave situation may occur. Even the reasons given by the Court below is based upon the consideration of one aspect of the matter only. If the reasoning given by the Court below is accepted then the more grave situation may occur. If the reason given by the trial Court are accepted then the respondent No. 1 may claim that a person having number of firms in his own name and is owner of the different plots separated by several buildings, or may be situated scattered at various places in the city then as per the sub-clause (2) of clause (c) of Condition 5 after getting one electric connection over one piece of land, no new connection will be given to that consumer for his different plots and the consumer will be required to apply for extension of load and will have to take the electric connection to his different plots by laying down electric lines. This example further if extended to the extent that the board may refuse even electric connection to one consumer having industrial connection for his industry in one city to get the electric connection for consumer's second unit in different city. The reason appears for making the above provisions is that in one premises as far as possible there can be only one electric connection for industrial and non-domestic purposes so that instead of obtaining connection for appropriate load, the consumer may not obtain the number of connections causing not only revenue loss to the board but also may result into unnecessary expenditure and maintenance for the supply of the electricity otherwise there was no reason to use the word the same premises in the above provisions. Electric connection in the same premises is, therefore, condition precedent for application of sub-clause (4) of clause (c) of Condition 5. 13. In view of the above, the finding recorded by the trial Court on issue Nos. 1 and 2 are set aside. The plaintiff proved that he is lease holder of the premises Sona Rubber Industries and obtained a separate electric connection having separate account No. MIP 702. The entire portion of the property of Sona Rubber Industries is one separate premises, which has been described by the neighbourhoods given in the lease deed Ex.6 whereas Hencock Rubber Industries is having its own separate premises described by the neighbourhood given in the lease deed Ex.7. The entire portion of the property of Sona Rubber Industries is one separate premises, which has been described by the neighbourhoods given in the lease deed Ex.6 whereas Hencock Rubber Industries is having its own separate premises described by the neighbourhood given in the lease deed Ex.7. The connection of the plaintiff's unit Sona Rubber Industries is not in the same premises in which industrial units of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are running. Therefore, the respondent defendant No. 1 has no right to ask for clubbing the connections of above three different industrial units mentioned in Ex. 1 to 3. 14. In view of the above finding given on issue No. 1, 2 and 4 it is held that defendant is not entitled to ask for clubbing of the electric connection of the plaintiff with defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and is entitled for injunction against the clubbing of electric connection and the plaintiff is also entitled for the relief of injunction against the defendant No. 1 that they shall not disconnect the electric connection of the plaintiff for non-clubbing the electric connection of the plaintiff with electric connections of defendant Nos. 2 and 3. 15. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed. The respondent No. 1 is restrained from clubbing the electric connection of the plaintiff's unit Sona Rubber Industries with electric connection of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and further restrained from disconnecting the electric connection of the M/s. Sona Rubber Industries on the ground mentioned in Annexures-1, 2 and 3 and in case the electric connection has been disconnected on account of non-compliance of the notice Ex. 1 to 3, the respondent No. 1 is directed to restore the electric connection of the plaintiff's firm Sona Rubber Industries. Plaintiff is entitled for the costs of the suit as well as of the appeal.Appeal allowed