1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.130 OF 2006 1. State of Goa, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Goa, Panaji, Goa. 2. Assistant Engineer, Sub. Div. I, Electricity Department, Curti, Ponda, Goa. 3. Mamlatdar of Ponda, Ponda, Goa. …. Appellants V/s M/s. Padma Industries, Velling Mardol, through Shri Shashi Panjikar, Major, R/o. Velling, Mardol. …. Respondent Mr. S. Vahidulla, Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. V.A. Lawande, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : F.M. REIS, J. DATE : 22nd JULY, 2011 JUDGMENT : The above appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 30/12/2005, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panaji in Civil Suit No.225/2004. 2 2. The suit came to be filed by the respondent for permanent injunction, inter alia, on the ground that the appellant no.2 had arbitrarily issued an electricity bill claiming a huge amount of arrears, when in fact he had settled finally the bill in the year 1993 and had asked for disconnection of the electric supply. It is further their case that a notice came to be issued to recover a sum of Rs.22,159/- on account of the outstanding electricity charges from the respondent. According to the respondent, the appellants were not entitled to claim the said amount and for other reasons as stated in the claim, the suit came to be filed praying, inter alia, for a permanent injunction restraining the appellants from claiming any amount in respect of the said electricity connection and for stay and dismissal of the proceedings initiated before the appellant no.1. A further relief was sought seeking refund of the amount accepted by the appellant no.2 as security deposit. 3. The appellants filed their written statement disputing the contentions of the respondent. It was their case that the amounts were not finally paid towards the arrears of the electricity charges as alleged by the respondent. It is further their case that three phase connection was discontinued on 15/07/1994 and the single 3 phase connection was disconnected in March, 1994 for non- payment of the electricity bills. The appellants further claimed that they are entitled to claim the said sum of Rs.22,189/- towards the three phase connection and Rs.7,785/- towards the single phase connection from the respondent. 4. The learned Judge after framing the issues and recording of evidence by the impugned judgment and decree dated 30/12/2005 partly decreed the suit filed by the respondents in terms of prayer clause (a), while rejecting the prayer clause (b) in the suit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 5. Shri Vahidulla, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and pointed out that the learned Judge has not at all applied its mind to the points in controversy and, as such, came to an erroneous conclusion that the respondents were entitled for the reliefs in the suit. The learned Counsel further submitted that the appellants were entitled to claim the said amount and without considering whether the contentions of the appellants are acceptable, the 4 learned Judge jumped to the conclusion that the claim of the appellants was time barred and granted the injunction as prayed for. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the law does not envisage granting of such an injunction as prayed for by the appellants when amounts are due from the respondents. The learned Counsel took me through the evidence on record and pointed out that the learned Judge has not at all appreciated the material produced on record and, as such, based on erroneous findings decreed the suit filed by the respondent. The learned Counsel, as such, submitted that the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. On the other hand, Shri V.A. Lawande, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel though accepted the position that under the provisions of Article 112 of the Limitation Act a suit on behalf of the State can be filed within a period of 30 years, nevertheless, he submitted that the claim of the appellants is barred in view of the time prescribed under the Electricity Act. The learned Counsel further submitted that considering the provisions of Electricity Act, the appellants were not entitled to claim the said 5 amount as sought to be recovered by the impugned notice. The learned Counsel further submitted that the respondents had finally settled the payment of the arrears of the amounts and, as such, the question of claiming any further amounts from the respondent would not arise. The learned Counsel further submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following point for determination arises in the present appeal: POINT FOR DETERMINATION : Whether the learned Judge was justified to grant the permanent injunction on the ground that the claim of the appellants was barred by law of limitation. 8. On perusal of Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963, there can be no doubt that the suit on behalf of the State Government can be filed within a period of 30 years from the date the cause of action arises. This aspect has not at all been considered by the learned Judge while passing the impugned judgment. The 6 contention of Shri Lawande that the claim of the appellants is barred under the provisions of Electricity Act is also an aspect which has not been considered by the learned Judge while passing the impugned judgment. The learned Judge has not at all appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with the well settled principles of law. Merely because a claim is time barred under the Limitation Act, a party cannot get a permanent injunction as limitation only bars a remedy and does not defeat a right. The learned Judge will have to consider the merits of the rival contentions as to whether claim of the respondents that they had finally cleared the arrears of the electricity charges is well founded. The learned Judge has not at all considered the said aspects. 9. As such, in the interest of justice, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded to the learned Judge to decide the said suit afresh in accordance with law, after giving both parties an opportunity to lead further evidence. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 10. In view of the above, I pass the following order: 7 O R D E R (1) The appeal is partly allowed. (2) The impugned judgment and decree dated 30/12/2005 is quashed and set aside. (3) Civil Suit No.225/2004 is restored to the file of the learned Additional District Judge. (4) The learned Additional District Judge is directed to decide the suit afresh after giving both the parties an opportunity to lead evidence in accordance with law. (5) All the contentions raised by the parties on merits are left open. (6) Appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to cots. (7) Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge on 30/08/2011 at 10.00a.m. F.M. REIS, J. NH/-