IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.406 of 1994 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN BIDHUT BHAWAN, PATNA 2. CHAIRMAN ELECTRICITY BOARD, BIDHUT BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. ELECTRICITY SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, GAYA CIRCLE, GAYA. 4. ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SUPPLY DIVISION, MANPUR. 5. ASSISTANT ELECTRIC ENGINEER (REVENUE) MANPUR CIRCLE, GAYA ...............DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-APPELLANT Versus BRIJNANDAN SINGH, SON OF LATE BRAHAMADEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-DEEMA, PO. DEEMA, P.S. KHIZERSARAI, DISTRICT-GAYA AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-DURGA BARI, P.S. CIVIL LINES, TOWN GAYA, DISTRICT-GAYA ............DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT ----------- 09/ 24.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This Second appeal has been filed by defendants-appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 35 of 1984 which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent-respondent for permanent injunction against the defendants from sending bills and realizing amount on the reading of the defective meter and from shifting or removing the transformer from the campus of M/s Shyam Talkies situated in Buniadganj Town under P.S. Manpur of District-Gaya. 4. The said Title Suit was decreed on contest with cost by the learned Munsif-II, Gaya vide his judgment and decree dated 31.07.1987. Against the aforesaid judgment and - 2 - decree of the trial court the defendant filed Title Appeal No. 75 of 1987 (02/1994) which was dismissed on contest without cost by the learned Additional District Judge11th, Gaya vide his judgment and decree dated 16.06.1994. 5. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record including the impugned judgments and decrees, it transpires that after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties the learned courts of appeal below came to the conclusion that the meter of the plaintiff became defective which ought to have been tested and the defendants miserably failed to discharge their duty and hence they are not at all entitled to send the electric consumer bill on the basis of reading of defective meter and realize those bills. It was also held that considering the relief, the plaintiff has got option to value the suit and he has valued the suit for Rs. 100/- which is well within the jurisdiction of the Court and hence the Court had pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. 6. After considering the entire aspect of the matter as a whole the learned court of appeal below came to the conclusion that no permanent injunction can be granted restraining the defendants from shifting the transformer at any point of time but at the same time, the defendants must be restrained from shifting the same unless and until they undertake and provide adequate proper transformer and adequate power to the plaintiff and if at any point of time the - 3 - defendants want to shift the said transformer that can be done on proper undertaking. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the instant Second appeal which is accordingly dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. S.Sb/- (S.N. Hussain, J.)