IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Rezaul Karim

Civil Revision No. 5502 of 2007 Md. Mahtab Uddin and another

...Petitioners -Versus-

Executive  Engineer,  Sales  &  Distribution Division-II, Pabna Electricity Distribution, Power Development Board, Pabna and another.

.…Opposite parties

None.

....For the petitioner

Mr. Md. Abdus Samad Azad, with

Mr. Md. Ahsan Habib, DAGs,

Mr. Mohammad Alam Khan, and

Ms. Sabikun Nahar, AAGs.

......For the opposite parties

Heard on: 21.06.2026

Judgment on: 22.06.2026

The instant Rule was issued on 26.11.2007 calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the judgment and order dated 11.11.2007,  passed  by  the  learned  District  Judge,  Pabna  in  Civil Revision No. 42 of 2007, allowing the revision and thereby setting aside the order of mandatory injunction dated 05.07.2007 passed by the learned Senior Assistant Judge, Sadar, Pabna in Other Class Suit No. 368 of 2007, should not be set aside.

At the time of issuance of the Rule, this Court also stayed operation  of  the  impugned  judgment  and  order  dated  11.11.2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Pabna in Civil Revision No. 42 of  2007  for  a  period  of  6  (six)  months,  and  further  directed  the opposite parties to restore the electricity connection to the disputed twisting and power looms mill of the petitioners, situated at Plot No. D.C.  127,  BSCIC  Industrial  Area,  Hemayetpur,  Pabna,  upon  the petitioners furnishing the necessary requisites within 48 (forty eight) hours.

The salient facts leading to issuance of the instant Rule, briefly stated, are that the present petitioners, as plaintiffs, had been running a manufacturing  operation  by  way  of  an  industrial  undertaking, comprising twisting and power looms, in the scheduled land situated at  Plot  No.  D.C.  127,  Mouza  Chhatiani,  BSCIC  Industrial  Area, Hemayetpur, Pabna, under a lawfully installed Electricity Meter No. 04778496, maintained under Account No. 10650/C.

It  is  the  petitioners'  case  that  on  19.06.2007,  the  opposite parties, along with a task force, entered the manufacturing plant of the petitioners  and,  without  assigning  any  reason,  removed  the  said electricity meter, and thereafter, on 24.06.2007, served a penal bill dated 20.06.2007 amounting to Taka 4,45,732.72. When the petitioner No. 1 approached the office of the opposite party No. 1 on 25.06.2007 to enquire about the said penal bill, the opposite party No. 1 is alleged to  have  used  unseemly  language  and  had  him  removed  from  the office,  following  which  the  opposite  parties  disconnected  the electricity line of the mill, causing pecuniary loss to the petitioners amounting to Taka 5,00,000.

It is the further case of the petitioners that they had all along been paying their electricity bills regularly, including the bill for the month of May, 2007, and were accordingly not liable to pay the penal bill so raised and served upon them illegally and arbitrarily.

On  the  aforesaid  allegations,  the  petitioners  instituted  Other Class Suit No. 368 of 2007 before the learned Senior Assistant Judge, Sadar, Pabna, praying, inter alia, for perpetual injunction restraining the opposite parties from realising the penal bill and for restoration of the electricity connection. Along with the plaint, the petitioners also filed an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil  Procedure,  1908  for  temporary  injunction,  upon  which  the learned trial Court, by order dated 01.07.2007, issued show cause notice  upon  the  opposite  parties.  Subsequently,  upon  hearing  an application for mandatory injunction, the learned trial Court, by order dated  05.07.2007,  directed  the  opposite  parties  to  restore  the electricity connection to the disputed meter at once.

Being  aggrieved  by  the  said  order  of  mandatory  injunction dated 05.07.2007, the opposite parties, as defendants, preferred Civil Revision No. 42 of 2007 before the learned District Judge, Pabna under  Section  115(2)  of  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure,  1908.  The petitioners,  as  opposite  parties  in  the  said  revisional  application, entered appearance by filing a written objection, contending, inter alia, that the disconnection had been effected without any prior notice under Section 24 of the Electricity Act, and that they remained ready to pay their bills on the basis of actual consumption.

By the impugned judgment and order dated 11.11.2007, the learned District Judge, Pabna allowed the revision and set aside the order of mandatory injunction dated 05.07.2007, principally on the reasoning that the claim of arrear electricity bill was a matter to be determined  upon  evidence  at  the  trial,  and  that  the  direction  for restoration of connection 'at once' was too harsh a measure to be granted at the interlocutory stage.

Being  aggrieved  thereby,  the  petitioners  have  preferred  the instant Rule.

None appeared on behalf of the petitioners when the Rule was taken up for hearing, although the opposite party No. 1 has entered appearance in the Rule.

Mr.  Md.  Abdus  Samad  Azad,  the  learned  Deputy  Attorney General  appearing  for  the  opposite  party  No.  1,  submits  that  the learned Court of revision below, upon proper appreciation of the facts and the law, rightly set aside the order of mandatory injunction passed by the learned trial Court, inasmuch as the question of the arrear bill is

a disputed question of fact requiring evidence, and as such, the Rule is liable to be discharged.

We have gone through the record. It appears that this Court, at the  time  of  issuance  of  the  Rule,  had  directed  restoration  of  the electricity  connection  to  the  petitioners'  mill  upon  furnishing  of requisites within 48 (forty eight) hours, and had also stayed operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 11.11.2007 for a period of 6 (six) months. In such circumstances, it is reasonable to presume that the electricity connection to the petitioners' mill was restored in the meantime, in compliance with the said interim direction.

It further appears that the question as to whether the opposite parties are, in fact, entitled to realise the disputed penal bill of Taka 4,45,732.72 is essentially a question of fact, dependent upon evidence, and the same falls to be determined in Other Class Suit No. 368 of 2007,  which  remains  pending before the  learned  trial  Court.  This Court, sitting in revision, is not the appropriate forum to enter into that disputed question at this stage.

Regard being had to the above facts and circumstances, and having regard to the age of the Rule, we find that either the parties have lost interest in proceeding with the Rule, or the Rule has lost its practical utility on account of restoration of the electricity connection to the petitioners' mill in the meantime. We do not find any merit in the Rule.

In the result, the Rule is discharged, however, without any order as to costs.

The interim order of stay granted at the time of issuance of the Rule stands vacated.

Communicate the order at once.