The court clarified the entitlement to recover dues despite injunctions and addressed conditions under which injunctions are granted.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the Thrissur Municipal Corporation aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2004 in O.S.No.1868/2002 on the files of the 1^st Additional Munsiff Court, Thrissur as confirmed by the 1^st Additional District Court, Thrissur in A.S.No.12/2005.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal is as follows:-

The suit was one for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from disconnecting the electricity supply to the plaint schedule property and also restraining the defendant from taking coercive steps for recovery of the amount as per notice dated 15.06.2002. The suit was decreed by granting an injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from disconnecting the supply of electricity of consumer No.12546 and also from taking coercive steps for recovery of amount as per Ext.A1 demand notice dated 15.06.2002. Aggrieved, the defendant/appellant herein preferred A.S.No.12/2005 before the 1^st Additional District Court, Thrissur, which was dismissed on 22.02.2011 and hence, this appeal.

3. On 01.12.2025, this Court admitted this appeal on the following substantial questions of law framed in the memorandum of appeal:-

“1. Whether a relief of injunction can be sought by a person who has no legal right to seek the same as against the defendant ?”

2. Can the defendant be injuncted from realizing the dues under an electric connection without first getting declared that no electrical charges are outstanding ?

3. When a Statutory body produces statement maintained by them as mandated under law, whether further corroborations of the said statement are necessary ?

4. When a statement is appended to the written statement and no replication is filed by the plaintiff thereby admitting the contents thereof, is it proper on the part of the courts to ignore the details as contained in the statement filed by the defendant ?

4. Despite service of notice on the respondent, none appeared for the respondent.

5. Heard Sri.Santhosh P. Poduval, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the electricity connection in question was disconnected on 16.04.2010. The subject matter of the suit was pertained to a notice dated 15.06.2002. It is the specific case of the appellant – Corporation that no declaratory relief was sought for against the appellant to the effect that the plaintiff was not liable to pay arrears of the electricity charges pursuant to Ext.A1 notice. In short, the contention raised is that the reliefs granted by the courts below are beyond the pleadings.

7. In the nature of the contentions raised by the parties before the courts below and also the conscious act of the respondent/plaintiff in not appearing before this Court, despite service of notice, this Court is of view that it will suffice the cause, if the findings as regards the entitlement of the appellant to recover the arrears of electricity charges is vacated. As regards the injunction restraining the appellant from disconnecting the electricity connection is concerned, the same has become infructuous inasmuch as the electricity connection stood disconnected from 16.04.2010.

Resultantly, answering the substantial questions of law in the favour of the appellant, this appeal is partly allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2011 in A.S.No.12/2005 of the 1^st Additional District Court, Thrissur and dated 04.09.2004 in O.S.No.1868/2002 of the 1^st Additional Munsiff Court, Thrissur insofar as it restrained the appellant from taking coercive steps for recovery of the amount as per Ext.A1 notice. It is made clear that the appellant will be entitled to proceed, in accordance with the law, if there is a