1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. ::: JUDGMENT A.En. A.V.V.N.Ltd. and another. vs. Muratiya Marble Pvt. Ltd. S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.429/2007 UNDER SECTION 100 CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.4.2007 PASSED BY SHRI D.C. JAIN, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (FAST TRACK), RAJSAMAND IN CIVIL APPEAL DECREE NO.143/2007 (5/2004). DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 12.12.2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.S Mehta, for the appellants. - - - - - BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the appellants/ defendants. The trial court in a suit filed by the plaintiff/ respondent instead of granting injunction against 2 disconnection of electricity supply of the respondent directed the respondent to approach the Settlement Committee in view of the fact that the bill has been raised against the respondent by the appellants on account of the alleged defect in the meter of running slow. In the appeal preferred by the plaintiff, the first appellate court held that since the controversy arose because of defect in meter and admittedly, the matter was not referred to the Electrical Inspector by either of the parties and the Electrical Inspector had not determined the quantum of energy consumed by the consumer so as to assess the amount, therefore, the appellants are not entitled to claim any amount from the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the matter could have been referred to the Electrical Inspector on application which may be submitted by either of the parties and in this case, none of the parties have referred the matter to the Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act. It is further submitted that in this case, the meter was examined in the Laboratory in the presence of the plaintiff, therefore, the appellants could have raised the bill for the electricity consumption. It is also submitted that the suit was not properly valued in view of the fact that the bill of Rs.1,58,386.33p. was 3 raised against the plaintiff and the suit should have been valued on this amount and the plaintiff has not paid the court fees on this amount. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon a judgment of Allahabad High Court delivered in the case of The Premier Ice Factory, Kanpur vs. The Commercial Manager, Kanpur electricity Supply Administration and another reported in AIR 1988 Allahabad 8, wherein the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court observed that Sub-section (6) of Section 26 does not cast any duty on the licensee to refer any difference or dispute in respect of any meter for determination to the Electrical Inspector on behalf of the petitioner. If any difference or dispute was raised by the petitioner, it was for it to make a reference to the Electrical Inspector for its determination. As the petitioner has not made any such application as required by sub-sec. (6) of Section 26 to the Electrical Inspector, it cannot successfully urge that the respondents were not entitled to demand the arrears due against it because of the provisions contained in Section 26(6). I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the reasons given by the two courts below in the impugned judgments. It is not in dispute that the bill has been raised 4 because of the alleged less recording of electricity consumption and that bill was raised without getting it technically tested under Section 26(6) for which either of the party could have moved an application for testing of meter. Section 26(6) very specifically provides “...such Inspector shall estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during such time...”. Therefore, when there is a case of defect in meter so as to record less energy or more energy then Section 26(6) comes in operation and the electrical inspector alone can estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply. In view of the above reason, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgments. So far as suit valuation and payment of court fees on the amount of bill is concerned, it is also not having any legal foundation in view of the specific provision of Section 26(3) of the Court Fees Act which clearly provides that in a suit for injunction, the plaintiff is entitled to value the suit and it is not dependent upon the demand raised against the plaintiff and particularly, when the case is against the illegal demand. 5 In view of the above, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Consequently, this second appeal, having no merit, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya