R C CHOUDHARY Vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated 16th February 1988 directing the petitioner to deposit 50 per cent of the disputed bill of Rs. 10, 672-45p within 15 days from the date of the order failing which, it was directed, that the stay order shall stand vacated. This Court by order dated 1st March 1988 directed that notice to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted be issued to the respondent returnable for 4th May 1988 and further ordered that meanwhile, telephone No. 7210504 will not be disconnected. On 4th May 1988 no one was present on behalf of the respondent inspite of the service of the notice and the court directed that record of the trial Court be sent for and listed the case for today. Again no one is present on behalf of respondent. Accordingly, I proceed to judgment in absence of the respondent.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that Telephone No. 637174 was installed at East of Kailash, New Delhi, which was transferred to Shakti Nagar, Delhi, and new telephone No. 743500 was allotted. Both these telephone numbers were allotted to the petitioner. The further case of the petitioner is that telepohne No. 743500 stands disconnected since 1984. Now a demand dated 1st February 1988 has been raised by the respondent claiming certain amount for the period from 1980 to 1984. The said demand is for Rs. 10,672.45. The respondent in their letter of demand have stated that in case the amount of Rs. 10,672.45p is not paid within seven days of the issue of the letter the telephone no. 7210504 shall be disconnected. The petitioner has challenged this demand by filing a petition under section 7B of the Telegraph Act 1885 and has sought reference to arbitration. In the main petition which is new pending in the trial Court, the stand of the petitioner is that telephone No. 7210504 is that of his son and he has no concern with the said telephone and that telephone No. 7210504 cannot be disconnected for non-payment of alleged dues in respect of telephone numbers 637174 and 743500. Alongwith the main petition an application for grant of an ad interim injunction was also filed pray ing that ad interim injunction be issued restraining respondents from disconnecting the the said telephone No. 7210504. On the said application the learned trial Court passed order dated 16th February 1988 which, as stated above, is under challenge in this petition.

(3.) Considering the pleas of petitioner, it is just and proper that the order dated 1st March 1988 passed by this Court restraining the respondent from disconnecting telephone number 7210504 is continued till the decision of the interim application pending before the trial Court. I may note that Court has adjourned the case to 24th May 1988 for 1988 for the purpose of respondent filing written statement to the main petition and reply to the application for interim injunction.