JUDGMENT : Kalyan Rai Surana, J. Heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. K. H. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Muktar, learned counsel for the respondent/caveator. 2. By this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC, the appellant has challenged the order dated 25.05.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh in Misc. (J) 29/2016 in Title Suit No. 22/2016, thereby granting conditional injunction. With the consent of both sides, this appeal was heard along with the accompanying I.A.(Civil) No. 2296/2018. 3. Bereft of the details, it would be sufficient to mention here that by virtue of an agreement dated 24.10.2009 w.e.f. 28.04.2009 to 27.04.2014, the appellant, who is consumer of piped natural gas for its tea factory had booked for the supply of piped natural gas of 1090.080 SCUM per annum from the respondent, who is the transporter of pipe natural gas, which is being supplied in this case from the Oil India Ltd. On 23.03.2015, another agreement w.e.f. 28.04.2014 to 27.04.2019 was entered between the parties, wherein the booked quantity of piped natural gas was 1090.080 SCUM per annum, or 0.514 SCUM gas per day or 0.022 SCUM gas per hour (figure in 1000 SCUM). 4. By an Amendment Agreement dated 01.07.2015, the booked quantity of piped natural gas was enhanced from 1090.080 SCUM to 595.214 SCUM, requiring the appellant to deposit a further security of Rs. 32,53,014/- with the respondent. It is this amendment agreement, which is the cause of the dispute between the parties. 5. While the petitioner projects that the amendment had taken effect from the effective date of the previous agreement i.e., 23.03.2015, in so far as the booked quantity of piped natural gas is concerned, whereas stand of the respondent is that as per amendment agreement, the enhancement of the booked quantity of the piped natural gas would come into effect only from 01.07.2015, being the effective date of agreement, which would not have any retrospective effect from 23.03.2015. 6. 6. It is projected by the respondent that the piped natural gas supply from 28.03.2013 to 12.06.2015 the bills were raised in respect of the booked quantity of 1090.080 SCUM at the APM (i.e. Administrative Price Mechanism) rate, whereas, the excess quantity drawn over and above the booked quantity of 1090.080 SCUM, price was charged at the non-APM rates, which is also known as "market driven price". 7. Accordingly, as per the stand of the respondent, there was an unpaid balance of Rs. 25.38 lakh in respect of the 'natural gas' supplied for the period from 28.03.2013 to 12.06.2015. However, the stand of the appellant is that the respondent could not have raised the bill for Rs. 25.38 lakh, as the said amount was not due and payable by the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant had filed a suit before the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh for declaration and injunction, inter-alia, praying for a declaration that the demand made by letter dated 23.11.2015 for a sum of Rs. 25.38 lakh was illegal, arbitrary and not binding, and for a perpetual injunction from giving effect to and for enforcing the said demand letter and for mandatory injunction, directing the respondent to resume supply of piped natural gas, etc. 8. The said suit was registered as Title Suit No. 22/2016, alongwith the said application, a separate ad-interim injunction, which was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 29/2016. 9. The respondent contested the said injunction application and upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh, arrived at the conclusion that the appellant had consumed more gas than the approved booked limit as mentioned in the agreement and it had failed to pay the billed amount and by prima-facie concluding that the extra quantity of gas consumed by the appellant would attract non-APM price, the learned trial Court had passed a conditional injunction order by directing the appellant to deposit 25% of the billed amount to the respondent, upon which the connection shall be continued till the disposal of the main suit, failing which the respondent company was at liberty to do the needful after expiry of period of one month and accordingly, the injunction application was disposed of. 10. The aforesaid order is in challenge in the present appeal. 11. 10. The aforesaid order is in challenge in the present appeal. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the stand taken by the appellant in the injunction application. He has also explained the nature of the previous and current agreements dated 24.10.2009, 23.03.2015 and 10.07.2015 he has explained to this Court about the quantity of piped natural gas to be supplied under the said agreement by the respondent to the factory of the appellant. This Court does not intend to burden this order with those factual aspects, as those matters would be the subject matter of the decision by the learned trial Court in the suit. Therefore, any observation made by this Court on the factual matrix may prejudice either of the two parties in the suit. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the existence of the three golden principles for grant of injunction. 12. In line with his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for setting aside the impugned order and he has also pressed his connected application for stay of the order impugned herein till the disposal of the suit, being I.A.(Civil) No. 2296/2018. 13. Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the respondent has referred to the statements made in the written statement and written objection filed before the learned trial Court to project that the stand of the respondent on the point is that when the bills were raised from time to time on the appellant for supply of piped natural gas, the bill amount duly disclosed the bills raised for the assured booked quantity of 1090.080 SCUM quantified for such period and for the gas drawn in excess, bills were raised at non-APM rates. But the appellant had paid only the APM rates and they had not cleared their non- APM billed amount, which had cumulatively accrued to Rs. 25.38 lakh. 14. Therefore, it is submitted that the respondent has right to enforce its dues. However, as the learned trial Court had restrained its recovery of the 25% of the billed amount, it is submitted that the said order be maintained, which would ensure at-least 25% recovery of the billed amount to the respondent. 15. 25.38 lakh. 14. Therefore, it is submitted that the respondent has right to enforce its dues. However, as the learned trial Court had restrained its recovery of the 25% of the billed amount, it is submitted that the said order be maintained, which would ensure at-least 25% recovery of the billed amount to the respondent. 15. Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned senior counsel for the respondent, it is seen that the respondent has made a demand for Rs. 25.38 lakh, allegedly towards the dues arising out of the non-APM dues on account of excess supply of piped natural gas beyond the agreed quantity. 16. According to the enclosures to letter dated 23.11.2015, filed in the suit, the breakup of the bills are reflected therein, which shows that the bills were issued on the appellant from time to time. Against such bills, the letter of demand dated 23.11.2015 has been challenged in the suit. Under the said circumstances, the learned trial Court had held that it did not find anything wrong on the part of respondent in issuing the notice and accordingly injunction was refused. However, thereafter, the learned trial Court proceeded to direct the petitioner to pay 25% of billed amount and on such deposit, the respondent was directed to continue the supply the piped natural gas till the disposal of the main suit, further, granting liberty to the respondent to do the needful after the expiry of the period of one month. 17. It is in this context, this Court finds that the learned trial Court had exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity. This Court is of the view that if an ad-injunction is refused, the learned trial Court ought not to have issued a supplementary direction for continuation of gas supply upon payment of a quantified amount, which amounts to a mandatory injunction. The learned trial Court had held that the only point for the dispute is whether the Assam Gas Company Limited i.e., the respondent had charged the impugned billed for the sum of Rs. 25.38 lakh without any justification or not indicates that the learned trial Court had formed an opinion about the existence of a prima facie case for trial. 18. 25.38 lakh without any justification or not indicates that the learned trial Court had formed an opinion about the existence of a prima facie case for trial. 18. It is also seen that while granting a direction to the appellant to deposit 25% of the billed amount, in that context the learned trial Court had recorded that the discontinuity of the supply of the gas may cause serious prejudice to the appellant. Hence, not only the learned trial Court appears to be referring to one of the three golden principles for grant of ad-interim injunction, i.e. "irreparable loss and injury", but the same also forms a reference to the "balance of convenience", and it is in the said context that one month time was granted to the appellant to deposit 25% of the billed amount for a continued supply of piped natural gas. The consequence that will follow the discontinuation of supply of gas would be that the factory of the appellant would be shut down. This is a loss which is irreparable. 19. Thus, having found the presence of all the three golden principles for grant of adinterim injunction, that the learned trial Court had acted with jurisdictional error by refusing injunction and then to proceed to grant a temporary injunction for a limited period of one month, by further granting ad-interim injunction in mandatory form, directing the respondent to continue to supply 'gas' on payment of 25% of billed amount. 20. Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order impugned herein. In terms of the order of this Court passed on 22.06.2018 in connection with I.A. (Civil) 2296/2018 in FAO 36/2018, this Court is inclined to make the said order absolute till the disposal of the Title Suit 22/2016 by providing that if against the demand letter dated 23.11.2015, the appellant has deposited the sum of Rs. 7.50 lakh, in terms of the said interim order of this Court passed on 22.06.2018, as indicated above, the respondent would continue the supply of piped natural gas to the appellant. Subject to such payment, the respondent shall continue to supply piped natural gas to the appellant as per the agreement between the appellant and the respondent. The said payment would be without prejudice to the right of any of the parties. Subject to such payment, the respondent shall continue to supply piped natural gas to the appellant as per the agreement between the appellant and the respondent. The said payment would be without prejudice to the right of any of the parties. It made clear that if there is any default on part of the appellant to make payment of the money as indicated above to the respondent, this order shall not stand as a bar for the respondent to discontinue the supply of the piped natural gas to the appellant. 21. It is clarified that the observations made by the learned trial Court and this Court shall not influence the learned trial Court while deciding the suit. 22. This appeal stands partly allowed with modification of the impugned order dated 25.05.2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh in Misc (J) Case No. 29/2016 in T.S. No. 22/2016. 23. The parties are left to bear their own cost.