RSA No. 1635 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1635 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.04.2011. Virender Singh .......Appellant Vs. Uttri Haryana Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited ......Respondents and another CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. P.S.Bhangu, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging the order dated 22.6.2006, whereby `. 2,00,000/- were sought to be recovered from the plaintiff by way of penalty by the defendants. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the plaintiff was dishonestly using electricity through artificial means. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether present suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file RSA No. 1635 of 2010 (O&M) -2- present suit? OPD 4. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 30.1.2009, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed by Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 5.3.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had failed to lead his evidence despite 6 opportunities. Hence, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed by order and consequently suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Since, the plaintiff had failed to lead any evidence in support of his case, the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 01, 2011 Gurpreet