Binod Kumar Roy, J.

1. As the prayers of the different appellants were disposed of in the court below by a common order passed in Title Suit No. 80 of 1986 making the same applicable to other suits refusing to grant injunction in their favour, these five appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The portrayal of the relevant facts is short and simple. The plaintiffs-appellants assert that they do their business of stone cursing with the help of supply of electricity on the basis of agreements, but electric meters supplied were inherently defective; which also burnt bills were illegally prepared on the basis of 30% load factor even if supply of electricity was disrupted. The plaintiffs personally met the Executive Engineer and the Sub-divisional Electrical Engineer (Defendant Nos. 2 and 3) and informed them about the burning of the meters who inspected the meters and assured them to change them and told the plaintiffs that till the métiers are changed, the charge will be according to the average consumptions of the previous three months. Letters were written to the defendant No. 3, requesting that the average reading of previous three months should be made of