GEETA PUMPS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE SAHARANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by M/s. Geeta Pumps Private Limited forquashing the order dated 5/05/1998 contained in Annexure 28 passed by the learned District Judge, Saharanpur in Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1998.

(2.) Mr. R. K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by reason of an earlier decree passed in suit No. 380 of 1992, the petitioner is entitled to continuous supply of electrical energy to be made by respondent No. 2 through its officers, but the same having not been complied with, the decree was put into execution. Against the decree passed in suit No. 380 of 1992, Civil Appeal No. 32/1998 was preferred by the respondent-defendant. By an order dated 23-4-1998, further proceedings of the execution case No. 4 of 1998 was stayed. Thereupon, the petitioner had filed an application for vacating the said order of stay, which was disposed of by an order dated 5-5-1998 since been challenged in this writ petition. By the said order, hearing of the said application for vacating interim order was deferred to some other date and while deferring the hearing, the Court had observed that partial stay of the execution proceedings cannot be granted and therefore the prayer for partial stay was rejected. This order, according to Mr. Jain, cannot be sustained since the prayer was very modest. Inasmuch as upon application under Order 21, Rule 32(5) of the Code, the Court having found the officers responsible for non-performance of the decree should be punished, an order for civil prison as well as attachment was issued. The petitioner had prayed that so far as the order for civil prison and attachment is concerned, the same may remain stayed but so far as continuous supply of electricity to the petitioner should be maintained. According to him, the Court ought to have granted this prayer. Since this will entail irreparable loss and injury on the running of the factory of the petitioner, therefore, supply of the factory of the petitioner, therefore, purpose of not only allowing the petitioner to run his factory but also for the purpose of boosting economy of the country as well as the workers working in the factory.

(3.) Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand contends that the matter does not appear to be so simple and there are as many as 9 cases between the petitioner and the respondent. According to him, the matter requires a thorough probe as to entitlement of the petitioner to the relief claimed since according to him the petitioner is taking advantage of the judicial process which has been brought into being through sheer abuse of the process of law. Therefore, he seeks that this Court should invoke its jurisdiction under Art. 227 and exercise its power of superintendence to keep the subordinate Courts within the bounds of its jurisdiction and guide the Courts properly and also to see that the judicial process is not abused and disrepute is not brought upon on the judicial system by misusing its process to such extent as is the case in the present one. He further contends that in exercise of such jurisdiction under Art. 226, this Court should call for the records of each of the suits between the parties so as to do complete justice and settle the dispute between the parties. While so contending, Mr. Agarwal also submits that by virtue of agreement between the respondent and the petitioner, the respondent is bound to supply electricity to the petitioner, under its statutory obligation under the Indian Electricity Act 1910, Electricity Supply Act, 1948 and Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. Therefore, according to him, his client is ready, agreeable and prepared to maintain supply of electricity to the petitioner in terms of the agreement even irrespective of the decree. He further contends that the decree as it stands does not give any additional advantage to the petitioner which also requires the respondents to supply electricity in terms of the agreement which the respondent is bound to do and is under statutory obligation to do the same. Mr. Agarwal submits that his clients are ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement as well as to comply with the decree passed in suit No. 380 of 1992On these grounds though he is supporting the order dated 5-5-1998, yet he claims that he is prepared to maintain supply of electricity to the petitioner.