Supreme Court Judgments, Summarised

by Barrister Tahmidur Rahman | Nov 3, 2026

High Court Division

Sonali Jute Mills Ltd. v Executive Engineer, Sales and Distribution Division-2, Power Development Board and others

Civil Revision 1744/2004 · Decided 16 July 2026

Read the judgment ↓Every listing of this case Download PDF

1judge on the bench

2pages

13paragraphs

2laws considered

Summary

Sonali Jute Mills Ltd. sued the Power Development Board in the court of the Assistant Judge, Fultola, Khulna for a declaration that it was not bound to pay two disputed electricity bills and to restrain disconnection of its electric line. The trial court dismissed the suit. During its appeal to the District Judge, Khulna, the mill applied under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for an injunction restraining disconnection. The District Judge rejected the application, and the mill obtained a Rule in revision, arguing that disconnection would shut the mill and harm its employees. No one appeared for the opposite parties. The High Court Division found that the mill's own application stated that bills had been paid only up to December 2000, showing that it was a defaulter when it applied. A defaulter could not seek such an injunction, so the Rule was discharged and the interim injunction vacated.

Issues

Q1
Whether a consumer in default of electricity bills is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the supplier from disconnecting its electric line pending appeal.

Key points

The petitioner's own injunction application showed that electricity bills had not been paid after December 2000, so it was a defaulter when it applied.
A defaulter cannot pray for an injunction restraining the supplier from disconnecting its electric line.
The appellate court committed no illegality in rejecting the application for temporary injunction.
The ad-interim injunction granted when the Rule was issued was vacated on discharge of the Rule.

A defaulter cannot pray for injunction restraining the opposite parties from disconnecting the electric line; I am of the view that no illegality was committed by the appellate Court below in passing the impugned order.

From the judgment, Justice Md. Shohrowardi

Law considered

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, section 151

The judgment

In the court’s own words.

Civil Revision 1744/2004, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 2 pages, with paragraph numbers for citing.

Find in this judgmentPDF

1Present: Mr. Justice Md. Shohrowardi Civil Revision No. 1744 of 2004 Sonali Jute Mills Ltd. represented by its Manager, Administrative, Sonali Jute Mills Limited, Thana Khan Jahan Ali, District Khulna…..Petitioner -Versus- Executive Engineer, Sales and Distribution Division-2, Power Development Board, B.L. College Road, Doulatpur, District Khulna and others….Opposite parties Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam Khan, Advocate

….For the petitioner

2No one appears.

….For the opposite parties

Heard on 16.07.2026

Judgment delivered on 16.07.2026

3On an application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner, Rule was issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the order No. 2 dated 19.05.2004 passed by the District Judge, Khulna in Title Appeal No. 111 of 2004 rejecting the application for temporary injunction should not be set aside and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

4The relevant fact for disposal of the Rule is that the petitioner Sonali Jute Mills Ltd., as plaintiff, filed Title Suit No. 18 of 2003 in the Court of Assistant Judge, Fultola, Khulna, praying for a decree of declaration that the plaintiff is not bound to pay the disputed two bills as stated in the schedule of the plaint and restraining the defendants from disconnecting the electric line. After concluding trial, the trial Court dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 11.05.2004 against which the plaintiff filed Title Appeal No. 111 of 2004 in the Court of the District Judge, Khulna. During pendency of the said appeal, the appellant filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1, 2 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stating that the appellant-petitioner obtained the electric connection in accordance with law and paid the bill till December, 2006 but the respondent illegally threatened to disconnect the electric connection of the petitioner which was rejected by the appellate Court below against which, the petitioner obtained the Rule.

5Learned Advocate Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam Khan appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant-petitioner submits that the plaintiff obtained the electric connection after complying with the rules and procedure of the government and paid the electric bill till 2000, but the respondent, on false and concocted allegations, threatened the plaintiff-petitioner to disconnect its electric line and the

Page 2

appellate Court below ought to have allowed the application for injunction. He further submits that if the electric line of the petitioner is disconnected, Sonali Jute Mills Ltd. will be shut down and the production and the many employees of the mill will be affected and shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. Therefore, he prayed for an injunction restraining the opposite parties from disconnecting the electric line of the petitioner.

6No one appears on behalf of the opposite parties.

7I have considered the submission of the learned Advocate Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam Khan who appeared on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant-petitioner, perused the revisional application, the impugned order passed by the appellate Court and the records.

8At the very outset, it is noted that in reply to a question put to the learned Advocate Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam Khan, conceded that he is not aware as to whether the appeal filed by the petitioner is still pending before the appellate Court.

9On perusal of the application filed by the petitioner before the appellate Court under Order 39 Rule 1, 2 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, reveals that the said application was filed on 09.05.2004 stating that the plaintiff Sonali Jute Mills Ltd. paid the electric bill till December, 2000 which clearly proved that at the time of filing the application bills were not paid by the appellant and he was a defaulter. A defaulter cannot pray for injunction restraining the opposite parties from disconnecting the electric line; I am of the view that no illegality was committed by the appellate Court below in passing the impugned order.

10I find little substance in the application.

11In the result, the Rule is discharged.

12The ad-interim order of injunction granted at the time of issuance of the Rule on 01.06.2004 is hereby vacated.

13However, there will be no order as to costs.