Court No. - 30
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2401 of 2019 Petitioner :- Smt. Neelam Khanna And 2 Others Respondent :- Additional Civil Judge And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kshitij Shailendra Counsel for Respondent :- Pranjal Mehrotra
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Pawan Kumar Mishra, holding brief of Shri Pranjal Mehtrotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5, 6 and 7.
The present petition has been filed with the prayer to direct the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), New Court No.1, Moradabad (the respondent no.1) and learned Additional District Judge, Moradabad (the respondent no.2 to get execute the order dated 17.10.2018 passed in Original Suit No.269 of 2018 (Smt.Neelam & two others vs. Shyam Sundar & Another) as confirmed vide order dated 28.1.2019 passed in Misc.Civil Appeal No.1 of 2019, in consonance with the sprit of Order 30, rule 1, 2, 2A and 7(1), (a) (b) (c) read with rule 7(2) of the code of Civil Procedure, so as to facilitate electricity supply in the premises in possession of the petitioners as well as respondent no.5, 6 and 7 to get installed a prepaid or any other electricity meter in the aforesaid premises in possession of the plaintiffs- petitioners after accepting a sum of Rs.16,451/- the alleged dues concerning the Electricity Meter No.3202/26534 in the name of Darshan Lal.
Admittedly the interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 17.10.2018 directing the defendant to restore power supply. The defendant no.3 in the suit is landlord. The said order was modified in appeal to the extent that the interim order shall remain intact subject to the condition that the plaintiff would be liable to pay monthly electricity dues to the defendant, regularly in proportion to their consumption of electricity accommodation.
Submissions is that in view of the aforesaid interim injunction which is not being complied with, the petitioner had to file an application under Order 39 Rule 2A C.P.C. Placing reliance on the judgement passed in the case of Shashi Kant Bajpai vs. State of U.P. (2012 (6) ADJ 15 (LB) and Smt.Jagannathiya vs. State of U.P. and others, 2006(3) AWC 2600 submissions is that in such circumstances direction can be issued to the parties concerned, even if, they are not parties to the suit as otherwise the order of civil court would become redundant.
Opposing the petition learned counsel for the Electricity Department, respondent no.5, 6 & 7 submitted that the dues are outstanding against the landlord.
At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is willing to pay the arrears of electricity charges to the respondents with condition that on depositing the entire outstanding against the landlord he may be granted new connection.
In this view of the matter in the light of judgement relied by learned counsel for the petitioner this petition is disposed of with the direction to the court below to decide the application of the petitioner filed under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C. in the light of the judgement, preferably with a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date:26.4.2019 RK