DIVISIONAL ENGINEER TELEPHONES CUTTACK Vs. BEHARILAL SHYAMSUNDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants are the appellants against a reversing judgment in a suit for injunction. Plaintiff filed the suit for relief of permanent injunction against the defendants from disconnecting the telephone number Cuttack 21 127 for non-payment of arrear dues in respect of Phone number Cuttack 1995 as the plaintiff have no connection with aforesaid telephone number Cuttack 1995. Plaintiffs case in brief is that he was the Managing Partner of Messrs Beharilal Shyamsunder and was the subscriber of Telephone number CK-21127 and was regularly paying all the dues in respect of the said telephone. There was no default on his part in paying the bills, but he received a notice on 7/11/1979 from the authorities of the Telephone Department wherein it was mentioned that the outstanding amount of Rs.4,247.30 in respect of Telephone Number CK-1995 if not paid by 20/11/1979 then the plaintiffs telephone number Ck-21127 would be disconnected. It was alleged in the plaint that telephone number Ck-1995 belonged to Utkal Loom Industries with which the plaintiff has no connection and, therefore, his telephone bearing number Ck-21127 cannot be disconnected for non-payment of the dues of some other telephone connection. Since the plaintiff apprehended disconnection of his telephone line, he filed the suit.

(2.) The defendants in their written statement denied the allegations made in the plaint and it was their plea that Shyamsundar Bajoria, the Managing Partner of the plaintiff-firm was also in management of the Utkal Loom Industries Cooperative Society Limited to whom Telephone Number Ck-1995 had been provided and, therefore, plaintiffs telephone is liable to be disconnected for non-payment of the dues in respect of the other telephone bearing number Ck-1995. It was also pleaded in the written statement that the statute having provided for an arbitration of any dispute, the suit is not maintainable.

(3.) On these pleadings, the teamed Trial Judge framed as many as 7 issues and on issues Nos. 4, 5 and 6 came to hold that Shyamsundar Bajoria was not the owner or in charge of both the establishments, nor was it established that both the phones are under his control. He further found that both the establishments are different and, therefore, giving notice to the plaintiff demanding to pay the outstanding dues amounting to Rs.4,247.30 is unwarranted and the plaintiff is not liable to pay the outstanding dues for the phone number Ck-1995. But so far as issue No. 3 is concerned, after noticing the provision of Sec. 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, he came to hold that the suit is not maintainable as the aggrieved party has to avail the remedy available u/s 7-B(I) of the Act. Thus, even though on merits the trial Court found in favour of the plaintiff, but on the question of maintainability, it having found that Civil Court has no jurisdiction, dismissed the suit.