M/S Sukgo Plywood & Anr. vs Bses - Rajdhani Power Limited
2008 Latest Caselaw 2145 Del

*               IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           FAO No. 466 OF 2007

                                Date of Decision : December 03, 2008

M/s Sukgo Plywood & Anr.                      .......Appellants
                                    Through Mr. Ashutosh Gupta,
                                    Advocates

                                     Versus

BSES-Rajdhani Power Limited                              .......Respondent.
                                    Through Mr. Sharath Sampath,
                                     Advocate


CORAM :
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
       judgment? No

2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not? No

3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No



SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs impugning

order dated 10th December, 2007 passed by the learned

Additional District Judge whereby defendants, who are

respondents herein, were restrained from disconnecting the

supply of the plaintiffs subject to the condition that the plaintiffs

shall deposit 50% of the impugned demand within a period of

one month. It was also directed that in case the said amount is

not deposited, the defendant/respondent will be at liberty to

proceed against the connection in question in accordance with

law. At the request of the plaintiffs, the learned Additional

District Judge had also permitted the plaintiffs to deposit the

said amount in three equal installments. The last installment

being payable by 28th February, 2008.

2. Along with the appeal, the plaintiffs had also moved

an application under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC

praying for interim directions restraining the defendants from

disconnecting the electricity supply to the premises of the

appellants/plaintiffs. Notice was issued to the respondents on

31st December, 2007. On 4th February, 2008, it was noted that

the first installment as directed to be paid vide the impugned

order has already been deposited by the appellants before the

instant appeal was filed. As regards the balance installments,

this Court directed the appellants to pay an additional amount of

Rs. 1,00,000/- within a period of two weeks. It was also directed

that subject to this payment by the appellants to the respondent,

impugned order giving directions to the appellants to pay the

remaining two installments was stayed. The appellants were

directed to continue to pay current charges as raised by the

respondents. Mr. Gautam Aggarwal who is the sole proprietor of

Appellant No. 1 is present in person. He states that the amount

of Rs. 1,00,000/- as directed by this Court on 4th February, 2008

stands paid. This fact has also been affirmed by learned counsel

for the respondent. Mr. Gautam Aggarwal, as also Mr. Sharath

Sampath, state that the case is now listed before the learned

Additional District Judge on 16th December, 2008 for final

arguments and in that view of the matter, nothing further

remains to be done in this appeal. Learned counsel for the

respondent states on instructions that since the matter is likely

to be heard finally on 16th December, 2008 or soon thereafter,

the appeal itself could be disposed of in terms of the impugned

order dated 4th February, 2008.

3. Looking to the circumstances that the suit is pending

disposal for final arguments before the Additional District Judge

on 16th December, 2008; this appeal is disposed of in terms of

the interim order passed on 4th February, 2008, which is made

absolute.

4. The appeal as well as the pending applications are

disposed of.

Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.

December 03, 2008 sl