ORDER : ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J. 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is assailing the correctness of judgment and order dated 06.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.7807 of 2018. 2. The background of fact which has given rise to the present appeal is that appellant – original petitioner is owner of Variety Engineering & Construction Company. The said firm was previously managed and owned by father of the appellant – original petitioner and other family members. The respondent - Company is a Vij Company Limited, holding requisite license under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred as to the “Act”) for the purpose of transmitting and supplying electricity in the operational area. A land bearing Survey No.549, Revenue Survey No. 235/1/2 is stated to be currently of the ownership of appellant – original petitioner. The said land is consisting of a factory premises on the front side and residential premises on the back side. The appellant's father originally applied for electric connection for the use of electricity for industrial/commercial purpose, which came to be granted by the respondent - Company bearing consumer No.1451/55522/1 from 10.05.1988. Further, a separate connection was also sought for residential purpose and the separate meter came to be installed by the respondent – Company for adjoining residential premises situated in back side of the factory bearing consumer numbers 14529/00642/5, 14529/00641/7 and 14529/00645/0. 2.1. It is the case of the appellant – original petitioner that on 22.02.2000, the officials of respondent - Company visited the factory premises and carried out inspection, and came to the conclusion that appellant – original petitioner is using extra load resulting into the theft of electricity, and consequentially, the connection of the company came to be discontinued. The said action was challenged by way of filing a suit which was registered as Regular Civil Suit No.1933 of 2000. But, the said suit came to be withdrawn with a view to approach the Appellate Committee of respondent - Company by way of filing a fresh suit. The appellant committee after examining the material on record, came to the conclusion that the extra load calculated by respondent was not accurate and therefore, was pleased to reduce and determine the amount recoverable to the extent of Rs.5,27,761/-. 2.2. The appellant committee after examining the material on record, came to the conclusion that the extra load calculated by respondent was not accurate and therefore, was pleased to reduce and determine the amount recoverable to the extent of Rs.5,27,761/-. 2.2. The case of the appellant – original petitioner is that subsequent to this decision, the respondent - Company instituted a suit for recovery of aforesaid amount which was registered as Special Civil Suit No.447 of 2008 whereas the appellant – original petitioner instituted a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.1181 of 2008 for seeking declaration against the respondent - Company to start the electric connection. The application for seeking interim relief, preferred by the appellant, came to be rejected vide order dated 18.02.2010. However, the proceedings of the main suit filed by the appellant i.e. Regular Civil Suit No.1181 of 2008 are still pending before the competent Civil Court at Vadodara. Since the electric connection of the factory premises was discontinued by the respondent - Company, the appellant – original petitioner was constrained to shutdown the business for want of such power and then in the proceedings filed by the Electricity Company, appellant appeared, submitted reply, and opposed the Special Civil Suit No.447 of 2008. The said Civil Suit, however, after adjudication came to be partly allowed vide judgment and order dated 25.11.2017 by holding that the respondent - Company is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.5,27,761.10/- along with interest at the rate of 11% from the date of filing of the suit. 2.3. It is the case of the appellant – original petitioner that concerned advocate, representing the appellant, did not inform about the outcome of this suit when it has been noticed that the said decision is adverse to the appellant and appeal came to be filed before this Court separately which is pending for consideration. By that time, the respondent - Company addressed a communication to the appellant on 30.04.2018, which came to be served upon the appellant on 04.05.2018 informing that since the decretal amount has not been paid, the same has been adjusted in the other three electric connections of the appellant. By that time, the respondent - Company addressed a communication to the appellant on 30.04.2018, which came to be served upon the appellant on 04.05.2018 informing that since the decretal amount has not been paid, the same has been adjusted in the other three electric connections of the appellant. According to the appellant, the respondent is not authorized to adjust the electricity dues of one connection which is used for commercial purpose in the other connection which is used for residential purpose and as such the respondent - Company being a monopolistic concern, is applying coercive method and threating the appellant – original petitioner which is impermissible and as such the petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being Special Civil Application No.7807 of 2018. 2.4. Originally, in an emergent situation, the status quo order was granted on condition to deposit 25% of decretal amount within a stipulated period, but when the main writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 06.02.2020 was pleased to dismiss the petition. However, operation of the order is suspended for a period of four weeks from the date of decision. On this background, the present appellant has assailed the judgment of learned Single Judge by the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Mr. B.K. Raj, learned advocate for the appellant – original petitioner has vehemently contended that while passing the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has not considered the settled position of law that Civil Procedure Code is a self contained Code, prescribing a specific remedy to execute the decree of the Civil Court and as such it was not open for the appellant to resort to Section 56 of the Act. It has been contended that even otherwise beyond the period of two years, a company is not in a position to recover the dues as has been held by catena of decisions. Mr. Raj, learned advocate for the appellant – original petitioner has further submitted that the respondent - Company being a monopolistic concerned, cannot apply any coercive method of recovery. Here is the case in which an attempt is made by the respondent Company to recover from a connection different from the connection in controversy by invoking Section 56 of the Act which, according to learned advocate Mr. Raj is impermissible. 3.1. Mr. Here is the case in which an attempt is made by the respondent Company to recover from a connection different from the connection in controversy by invoking Section 56 of the Act which, according to learned advocate Mr. Raj is impermissible. 3.1. Mr. Raj, learned advocate for the appellant – original petitioner has further submitted that the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the controversy involved in the petition. In fact, looking to the provisions of the Act vis-a-vis the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, this attempt to recover is impermissible. The decisions which have been relied upon by the learned Single Judge are also not possible to be applied in the peculiar background of this fact. As a result of this, the order in question is required to be set aside. 3.2. Mr. Raj, learned advocate for the appellant – original petitioner has further submitted that the substantive proceedings are still pending before this Court for its adjudication in which the original decree which has been passed on 25.11.2017 is challenged and as such if this action is allowed to be implemented, the said substantive proceedings would also become infructuous and this material aspect has not been properly gone into by the learned Single Judge. As a result of this, the said mistake deserves to be corrected. By referring to two other decisions, namely, the case of Kanwar Singh Saini versus High Court of Delhi reported in (2012) 4 SCC 307 and the case of Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited versus Rahamatullah Khan reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 206 in Civil Appeal No.1672 of 2020 decided on 18.02.2020, a contention is raised that the order of learned Single Judge is unsustainable. As a result of this, the relief prayed for be granted in the interest of justice. No other submissions have been made. 4. Having heard the learned advocate appearing for the appellant and having gone through the material on record, few circumstances are not possible to be unnoticed by us precisely when the litigant has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by way of writ petition initially and then appeal before us: 5. First of all, the chronology of events has suggested that the appellant – original petitioner has rather conveniently or miserably failed to pay the amount which has already been adjudicated upon and recoverable from him. First of all, the chronology of events has suggested that the appellant – original petitioner has rather conveniently or miserably failed to pay the amount which has already been adjudicated upon and recoverable from him. A perusal of the proceedings of the Civil Court which are attached to the Letters Patent Appeal compilation indicates that after fulfledged adjudication, a decision is taken by the Civil Court in Special Civil Suit No.447 of 2008 on 25.11.2017 by holding that appellant – original petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,27,761.10/- with interest at the rate of 11% per annum from the date of institution of the suit. This decree is made the subject matter of challenge before this Court in which the learned advocate has candidly submitted that there is no interim relief since condition imposed while granting interim relief has not been observed by the appellant – original petitioner by paying the amount. The suit of 2008 filed for recovery of a dues, which has started years back is tried to be thwarted. 6. In the aforesaid scenario, the appellant – original petitioner has contended that there is a regular mode of execution available to the respondent - Company, and therefore, the provision of Act cannot be made applicable. Now on the one hand, the appellant – original petitioner is taking this plea of relegating company to a regular execution proceedings and on the other hand, assertions have been made in the petition that the respondent - Company is not entitled to recover or adjust the arrears of one connection by adding the amount in another separate connection. Thus, the intent is very much clear from the stand taken in the petition that this plea would be taken in the execution proceedings to thwart the proceedings and to drag on some period by not paying the amount. 7. We have found from the record and is fairly submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant that conditional interim relief, which was granted, has not been obeyed and even on this count also, we are of the opinion that no equatable relief deserves to be granted to the appellant – original petitioner. 8. 7. We have found from the record and is fairly submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant that conditional interim relief, which was granted, has not been obeyed and even on this count also, we are of the opinion that no equatable relief deserves to be granted to the appellant – original petitioner. 8. From the reading of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we have clearly noticed that relying upon the judgment of Division Bench, Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act has been taken note of and after considering the same, the learned Single Judge has chosen not to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction. The detailed observations which have been kept in mind are not possible to be unnoticed and as such the order is passed by the learned Single Judge after due application of mind to the contentions raised by assigning proper reasons. Hence, we see no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. Apart from this, it is visible from paragraph 4 of the order of the learned Single Judge that it is this appellant who has shown readiness by requesting the Company to allow him to make the payment by installments and the electricity company accepted the request for payment by installments but the appellant after making payment for a period of one year has stopped making payment dragging the company to the Civil Suit. For exercising extraordinary jurisdiction, in our considered opinion, this conduct is also relevant which has rightly been kept in mind by the learned Single Judge while deciding the petition. 10. From the material on record and the order passed by the Civil Court, the said adjudication has taken place in a fulfledged manner and the responsibility of making payment has already been crystallized by effective finding by the competent forum. When a successful attempt is made till date to evade the liability on the one pretext or the other by entangling the issue in litigation, we cannot ignore such conduct on the part of appellant – original petitioner particularly when the learned Single Judge has after due application of mind examined the grievance of the appellant – original petitioner. 11. When a successful attempt is made till date to evade the liability on the one pretext or the other by entangling the issue in litigation, we cannot ignore such conduct on the part of appellant – original petitioner particularly when the learned Single Judge has after due application of mind examined the grievance of the appellant – original petitioner. 11. A further fact is also not possible to be unnoticed that the factory premises have been closed down and as such the electricity company cannot be left remedyless when Civil Court has passed a decree on merit. 12. Now in the light of this peculiar background of fact, the judgments which have been tried to be pressed into service delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Kanwar Singh Saini (supra) and in the case of a decision Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (supra) deserve to be dealt with. Out of these decisions, one of which is regarding enforcement of interim or the final orders/decree passed by the Court including undertaking given to the Court. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was confronted with the situation to decide the role of execution vis-a-vis contempt proceedings. In that peculiar set of circumstance, the Apex Court has delivered a decision which may not be possible for us to straightway apply in the background of facts on hand which are quite distinct. At this stage, we may recollect that law of precedent is clearly suggesting that if the facts are different, even one additional fact may make a world of difference in applying the ratio contained in the judgment and therefore, when the background of facts are altogether different, mechanically it is not possible for us to apply the said judgments especially when the conduct of the appellant – original petitioner is self explanatory and as such, we are of the view that these judgments of 2012 are of no assistance to the appellant – original petitioner. 13. Yet another decision which has been delivered by the Apex Court, in a recent time, is a decision in case of Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (supra). While going through this decision, we have noticed that the Court has dealt with the issues which have been formulated in the very first paragraph. 13. Yet another decision which has been delivered by the Apex Court, in a recent time, is a decision in case of Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (supra). While going through this decision, we have noticed that the Court has dealt with the issues which have been formulated in the very first paragraph. The issue was whether the appellant - Corporation would be entitled to recover the additional demand from the respondent even if it is time barred. By appointing amicus curiae, the Apex Court has analyzed Section 56 of the Act in the given set of facts of that case. In paragraph 8, after analyzing Section 56(2), it has been held that this provision does not preclude the licensee company from raising a supplementary demand after expiry of the limitation period of two years. It only restricts the right of licensee to disconnect electricity supply due to non-payment of dues after the period of limitation of two years has expired, but it does not restrict other modes of recovery which may be initiated. Here is the case in which the liability has already been crystallized by due process of law and the specific decree has been passed and as such it is not the case that demand has been raised after a period of two years. Furthermore, we feel that substantive proceedings are pending before this Court assailing the decision delivered by the Civil Court on 25.11.2017 and as such, by keeping aside the said substantive proceedings and having committed breach of conditional interim relief, present appellant – original petitioner has come forward now to seek an equitable relief. In extraordinary jurisdiction, the learned Single Judge has rightly dealt with the appellant – original petitioner and we are also of the confirmed opinion that in such kind of situation, when a specific assertion is made by the appellant – original petitioner, no such equitable relief can be granted by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction. This issue can well be agitated in a substantive proceeding which is undisputedly pending before this Court and as such without expressing any opinion on merit of this contention, we may leave it open for the appellant – original petitioner to agitate in the appeal which is pending. But, the situation, over all circumstance and the conduct of appellant – original petitioner has justified the learned Single Judge not to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction. But, the situation, over all circumstance and the conduct of appellant – original petitioner has justified the learned Single Judge not to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction. As a result of this, appeal lacks merit, the same stands accordingly dismissed. 14. In view of the order passed in main matter, Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.