AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 282 wordsTHIS revision under Section 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act) is directed against the order dated November 22,1991, passed by the District Forum, Kapurthala in Misc. Application No.75 of 12.10.1991. By the order under revision, the petitioner (opposite party before the District Forum) was restrained from enforcing the Peak Load Restrictions against the complainant till further orders. THIS is an interlocutory order. It appears from the record that the impugned order was passed by the District Forum on 22.11.1991 and the case was then listed for filing reply on behalf of the opposite party for 5.12.1991.
THE interim injunction in the shape of mandatory form has been issued against the opposite party-petition; (THE only question before us is whether the District Forum has jurisdiction to pass the order, which it did. THE relief which has been granted to the complainant by an interim order, is in the nature of injunction. THE power of issuing injunction has not been conferred on the ''Redressal Forums'' constituted under the Act. THE direction issued by the District Forum under the impugned order does not fall within the scope of Section 14(i) of the Act. THE District Forum, Kapurthala has, therefore, acted wholly without jurisdiction in passing the interlocutory order against the S.D.O., Punjab State Electricity Board, Kapurthala, pending completion on its adjudication of the complaint on merits. We allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned order dated 22.11.1991 passed by the District Forum in Misc. Application No.75 of 12.10.1991 and direct the District Forum to dispose of the main complaint expeditiously. Under the circumstances of the case, the parties will tear their own costs. Revision petition allowed.
