A court has the power to grant an interim mandatory injunction for restoration of electricity supply, even if the obligation to supply electricity is not specifically enforceable, where the defendant forestalled the suit by assuring the plaintiff that they would reconsider the position and then disconnected the supply obviously anticipating the suit and to forestall the same.

Sen, J.

This is a revisional application at the instance of the defendant in a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction and damages. The revisional application is directed against an order dated July 29, 1981, passed by the learned District Judge, Howrah in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 19 of 1981 thereby affirming an order dated January 31, 1981, passed by the learned Munsif, 1st Court, Howrah, allowing the plaintiff's prayer for temporary mandatory for restoration of electric supply in the suit premises passed in Title Suit No. 298 of 1979.

2. The plaintiff is a lessee in respect of holding Nos. l30A and l30B, Dharamtala Street, Howrah, under a partnership firm, Chhotulal Jaharmul, being the proforma-defendant No. 4 in the aforesaid suit. According to the plaintiff they run a factory on the leasehold premises and for the said purpose were having electricity supplied through the defendant No.1, Bhutoria Brothers, another partnership firm running their factory at holding No. 130, Dharamtala Street under an agreement. They had not only shared security deposit with the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation for the bulk supply of electricity through the defendant No.1, but they had been regularly paying for the electricity consumed by them which was limited to 94 H.P. The defendant No. 1 served a notice dated August 24, 1979, proposing to disconnect the supply of electricity on certain untenable grounds and when the plaintiff approached the defendant No. 1 they assured to reconsider their decision but suddenly on October 31, 1979, the defendant No. 1 disconnected the supply of electricity to the plaintiff. Such disconnection resulted in serious prejudice and irreparable loss to the plaintiff who at their factory had commitments to manufacture goods deliverable to national and international concerns. Hence, they instituted the aforesaid suit on November 20, 1979, and therein filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for immediate restoration of the supply of electricity pending the disposal of the suit. Such a prayer having been concurrently allowed by the two courts below, the defendant No.1 has preferred the present revisional application.

3. Mr. Dutt, appearing in support of this revisional application, has challenged the orders passed by the two Courts below on the ground that such an order is clearly unsustainable in law and no Court could have granted such an interim mandatory injunction as prayed for. According to Mr. Dutt even upon the plaintiff's own case the defendant No.1 committed a breach of their obligation under a contract when they disconnected electric supply with effect from October 31, 1979, and when such an obligation is not specifically enforceable the plaintiff is, at best, entitled to damages so that an order of mandatory injunction by way of enforcement of such an obligation is not sustainable in law. Secondly, it has been contended by Mr. Dutt that the power of a Court to grant an interim mandatory order is limited to restoration of things as they were on the date of the suit and nothing more. In the present case, according to Mr. Dutt disconnection having been effected on October 31, 1979, and the suit having been filed 20 days thereafter the Court could have no jurisdiction to direct restoration of the electric supply by an order of temporary mandatory injunction.

4. Both the points have been contested by Mr. Chatterji appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite-party. According to Mr. Chatterji, the obligation of the defendant No. 1 to supply electricity to the plaintiff does not rest entirely on an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1. Mr. Chatterji has drawn our attention to the materials appearing on the records of the suit to show that the defendant No. 1, obtaining bulk supply of electricity from the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation were under an obligation to share the supply with other lessees like the plaintif