1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26th July, 1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Original Suit No. 2/98 by which the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

2. Brief facts of the case are the plaintiff-appellant is consumer of the respondent No. 1 (defendant No. 1) having the electric connection in the name of Sona Rubber Udyog. The account number of the plaintiff is MIP 702. The plaintiff alleged that a notice was issued by the Asst. Engineer of the respondent No. 1 on 6.2.97 stating that during inspection it was found that three industrial units Hencock Rubber Industries account No. MIP 33, Kalpatru Industries account No. MIP 36 and Sona Rubber Industries account No. MIP 702 are running in the same premises having common entrance and approach. The work of above three industrial connections carried out by one concern/proprietor. Therefore, as per the sub-clause (c) of condition No. 5 of the General conditions of supply all the connections are required to be clubbed together and, therefore, the plaintiff should make necessary arrangement for clubbing of three connections within a period of one month. The plaintiff gave reply to the above notice dated 6.2.47 on 5th March, 1997 stating that three industrial units are not situated in one premises nor the plaintiff is proprietor of the above three units and raised certain objections. It was also stated in the plaint that all the three firms have no relation with each other, all the three firms are having separate sales tax number and they are assessed by the income tax department separately and all the three industrial units are registered by the department of the State of Rajasthan as separate units, therefore, the connections cannot be clubbed. The plaintiff apprehending disconnection for non-compliance of the notice dated 6.2.97 and subsequent notice dated 6.2.98 filed the suit for injunction seeking relief against the clubbing of the electric connection of the three units by the respondent No. 1 and sought against the disconnection.

3. The respondent No. 1 (defendant No. 1) submitted written statement and stated that all the three units are situated in one premises and working for the benefit of the plaintiff. It was stated that there is only one way to reach to the three units. It was also stated that even in case there are different persons having common interest even then the electric connection can be clubbed. The defendant further submitted that to avoid tax liability the three units were created by the plaintiff and it causes loss to the respondent-Board also. According to sub-clause (4) of the Condition 5 of the General Condition of Supply and Scale of miscellaneous charges relating to the supply of Electricity these connections are required to be clubbed together and in case of non-compliance by the consumer, the board has power to disconnect the electric supply of the plaintiff as well as his units.

4. The trial Court framed the issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. Issue No. 1 is that whether plaintiff's and defendants No. 2 and 3's factory owners are different, issue No. 2 is that whether the defendant-respondent No. 1 has no right to club the electric connections of plaintiff defendant Nos. 2 and 3, issue No. 3 is that whether plaintiff is entitled for relief of injunction and issue No. 4 is that whether the suit is not maintainable in civil court.

5. In the trial Court plaintiff appeared as PW-1 whereas defendant No. 1 produced DW-1 Madan Lal. The trial Court after hearing the arguments held that plaintiff failed to prove that the owners of the three industrial units are different. While deciding issue No. 2, the trial Court held that all the three industrial units are situated in one premises and the defendant is entitled to club the electric connections in view of the condition No. 5C4. In addition to above, the trial Court held that the suit of t