Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3586 (ALL)

FARID KHAN v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-10-27

KRISHNA MURARI, VIJAY LAKSHMI

body2016
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Bipin Bihari learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner has a commercial electricity connection bearing No. 559665. The dispute arose when the bill of the petitioner was calculated and raised on the basis of 64H.P., whereas, according to the petitioner the sanctioned load was only 60 H.P. Suit No. 1273 of 1999 was filed by the petitioner seeking a decree of declaration that checking report dated 15.10.1999 and consequential bill dated 23.10.1999 for a sum of Rs. 48938/- was illegal and void. A further relief of decree of prohibitory injunction was also sought commanding the defendant-respondents to reconnect the electricity supply and not to realize any amount on the basis of the disputed checking report and bills dated 15.10.1999 and 23.10.1999. Trial Court vide order dated 24.12.1999 directed the defendant-respondents to resume the power supply of the petitioner within 24 hours and they were also restrained from disconnecting the electricity supply. Alleging non compliance of order plaintiff-petitioner filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. Trial Court while inviting objections to the said application vide order dated 31.3.2000again directed resumption of power supply to the petitioner’s unit and also to continuously maintain the electricity supply. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court seeking a mandamus commanding the respondent to comply with the order dated 31.3.2000. Another relief was sought that a direction be issued to the respondent No. 4 Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ghaziabad to decide the pending suit within specified period. 3. In so far as first relief is concerned, we fail to understand as to how the writ petition seeking the aforesaid relief is liable to be entertained. The petitioner in case of non compliance of the injunction order has already approached the trial Court through an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure confer enough power on the Court below itself to ensure compliance of its order and the consequences of non compliance of the order is also provided thereunder as such so far as the first relief is concerned, petition is not liable to be entertained. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the manufacturing unit of the petitioner having been closed long back, the relief claimed is rendered infructuous. 5. In so far as second relief is concerned the suit is pending since 1999. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the manufacturing unit of the petitioner having been closed long back, the relief claimed is rendered infructuous. 5. In so far as second relief is concerned the suit is pending since 1999. Neither there is any material on record nor learned counsel for the petitioner was able to point out the fact as to whether the suit has been finally adjudicated or still pending. 6. In any view of the matter in case the suit No. 1273 of 1999 is still pending the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ghaziabad may proceed to decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties provided the same has not already been decided. 7. With the aforesaid directions the Writ Petition stands finally disposed of.