SEHJIV KUMAR TANDON Vs. DELHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's grievance in this Revisionpetition are that the point raised by him before the learned Additional DistrictJudge have not been considered and that the Trial Court erroneously imposedthe condition while ordering restoration of electricity.

(2.) Petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction against therespondent-DESU. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 RulesI & 2 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure was also filed. Afterhearing the parties the learned Sub Judge prima fade came to the conclusionthat the electricity be restored, however, it was subject to petitioner depositing50% of the demand raised by the respondent-DESU and for balance amountto furnish guarantee. It was against this imposition of the condition thatpetitioner preferred the appeal. The Appellate Court after going through therecord prima facie came to the conclusion that the respondent should consider of sanctioning 42 K.W electricity connection in favour of the petitionerfor running Banquet Hall subject to petitioner depositing Rupees five lacs.Because of this direction the Appellate Court did not deem it necessary toorder for restoration of electricity of I KW which was disconnected by therespondent.

(3.) It is against these conditional orders that present revision petitionhas been preferred.