1. The petitioner carries on his profession as an advocate in the city of Pune. He has his office in flat no.10B, Anandmayee Apartments, Survey No.15A/1, Karve Road, Erandvana, Pune-411004 (for short "the suit flat") and carries on his legal profession from the suit flat. The respondent supplies electric power to the suit flat. The petitioner was initially charged for the electric power at the rate applicable for residential use. In the year 2000, the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (for short "the MSEB") sought to charge the petitioner for the electric power at the rate applicable for commercial use. The petitioner filed a suit, bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 194 of 2000, for a declaration that the petitioner was not using the electric power for a commercial use and for an injunction restraining the MSEB from applying tariff meant for commercial use instead of residential use. The suit was decreed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune in favour of the petitioner on 5th May 2001. The Court granted a declaration that the petitioner was a domestic user of electricity and was not using electric power for commercial use. Accordingly it granted permanent injunction restraining the MSEB from charging tariff applicable for commercial use as opposed to the residential use. Appeal filed by the MSEB was dismissed by the District Court, Pune on 1st August 2001.

2. Subsequent to the decision of the appeal, operations of MSEB were divided into different companies formed for carrying out different operations like generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. The operations of distribution of power to the retail consumers were taken over by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited - the respondent herein. After taking over of the operation of retail distribution of electricity to the consumers, relying upon various orders passed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the MERC"), the respondent sought to bill the petitioner for the electricity supplied at the rate applicable to non-domestic users. The petitioner objected to the change of tariff and contended that the respondent can charge for the electric power consumed by him in the suit flat only at the rate applicable for residential use. He then put to execution the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division in RCS No. 194 of 2000 and confirmed by the District Court by filing an execution petition bearing Regular Darkhast No. 29 of 2009. In the execution petition, he asserted that as a permanent injunction was granted against the MSEB, the respondent, which was its successor, was bound by the decree and was bound to charge for the electricity at the rate applicable for residential use. He prayed that appropriate action be taken against the respondent for breach of the injunction.

3. The execution petition was resisted by the respondent by filing say-cum-objection under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent contended that the decree in RCS No. 194 of 2000 was passed on the basis of the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Electric (Supply) Act, 1948 and the tariff fixed by the MSEB thereunder. Both the Acts were repealed by the Parliament by enacting the Electricity Act, 2003 which came into force with effect from 10th June 2003. The Electricity Act, 2003 contemplates setting up of Electricity Regulatory Commissions which have been conferred a power to determine the tariff for electric power. The MERC has accordingly been set up for the State of Maharashtra, which has fixed a new tariff for electricity in the State of Maharashtra. As per the new tariff fixed by MERC, the petitioner is liable to pay for the electric power at a rate applicable to non-domestic users. As regards the decision in RCS No. 194 of 2000, the respondent contended that the decision has become inexecutable in view of fixation of new tariffs by the MERC and the decision has ceased t