THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.C.C.A.No.230 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (per NRLN,J) The defendants in O.S.No.132 of 1998 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad are the appellants herein. The suit was filed questioning demand of Rs.18,18,087/- towards pilferage of energy and also misuse of the power supply by the respondent/plaintiff, when the mill of the respondent/plaintiff was inspected on 05.11.1998 by the staff of the appellants. Thereafter, a provisional assessment notice dated 14.11.1998 was issued and the respondent/plaintiff was directed to pay a sum of Rs.18,18,087/-. The said notice was questioned and the appellants have filed a written statement contending that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and that a remedy is provided by way of appeal to the Superintending Engineer. Thereafter, when the suit was pending, the lower Court has directed the respondent/plaintiff to approach the Superintending Engineer (Operation) for redressal of its grievance against the provisional assessment notice given by the appellants. Thereafter, under Ex.A4 dated 16.09.1999, the Superintending Engineer after considering the contentions of the respondent/plaintiff has fixed the final assessment at Rs.3,14,622/- declaring the provisional assessment notice dated 14.11.1998 as null and void. Thereafter, the lower Court after taking into consideration, the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff and also the order under Ex.A4, passed the decree. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed by the appellants’- defendants. Now the points for consideration are:- 1) Whether the notice dated 14.11.1998 provisionally requiring the respondent/plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.18,18,087/- is valid. 2) Whether the declaration granted by the lower Court is legal and sustainable. POINTS: The appellants/defendants who claim to have assessed the pilferage did not go into the witness box and no report of inspection done by the Officers was produced before the lower Court. In fact, the Superintending Engineer passed the final order under Ex.A4 during the trial of the suit after hearing both the parties. In fact as against the said order, an appeal is provided to the Chief Engineer and evidently, the appellants have not preferred any appeal against the order of the Superintending Engineer. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the order under Ex.A4 has become final and consequently, the demand for a sum of Rs.18,18,087/- which was provisionally assessed under Ex.A3 has no force and only a sum of Rs.3,14,622/- which was determined as the final bill amount is payable by the respondent/plaintiff, which amount was said to have already been remitted by the respondent/plaintiff. Though, in this case, in the memorandum of grounds, several grounds were raised about the provisional assessment notice and the amount arrived at by the Inspecting staff, the lower Court rightly observed that no evidence was adduced to prove the said fact. All these contentions are irrelevant in view of the order under Ex.A4, which has become final. So far as the ground with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court is concerned, in fact when once the order under Ex.A3 is found to be not correct by virtue of subsequent order under Ex.A4 passed by the Superintending Engineer pending disposal of the suit none of the contentions raised by the appellants will stand to scrutiny. Therefore, the provisional assessment notice issued by the appellants is rightly said to be not valid in view of the order under Ex.A4 and there is no further liability to pay the amount on the part of the respondent/plaintiff as the demand under Ex.A4 has been already paid by it. Therefore, the decree of the lower Court is valid and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, but, under the circumstances no costs. V. ESWARAIAH,J N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J Dt.18.04.2011 Lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.C.C.A.No.230 of 2002 (per NRLN,J) Dt. 18.04.2011