-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 1228 of 2011 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: March 14, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 1228 of 2011 (O&M). Sohan Singh ... Appellant VERSUS Punjab State Electricity Board and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. R.L. Luthra, Advocate, for the appellant. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Sohan Singh (plaintiff-appellant) is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby his suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction has been dismissed by both the Courts below. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 1228 of 2011 (O&M). have gone through the records of the case. The claim of the plaintiff-appellant was that the demand of Rs.1,32,863/- raised by defendant-respondent Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as `the Board') vide memo No.1081 dated 7.3.2005 was arbitrarily assessed and, accordingly, he sought a restraint order against the Board not to disconnect the supply of electricity to the industrial premises of the plaintiff-appellant. The trial Court, after framing issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties, recording evidence led by the parties and hearing their counsel, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Both the Courts below have found it as a fact that the plaintiff-appellant had indulged in the theft of electricity as there was a hole in the cover of the electricity meter and scratches on the disc, which occur when somebody with mala fide intention to cause wrongful gain to himself indulges in the theft of electricity. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff- appellant had been penalized in accordance with law for committing theft of electricity. It was not the case of the plaintiff that the hole in the meter cover and scratches on the side of the electricity meter and disc were due to some patent defect or due to burning of the meter. The Board placed on record report (Exhibit D.3) given by M.E. Lab, which was very categorical one as to committing of theft of electricity by -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 1228 of 2011 (O&M). the plaintiff-appellant by causing a hole in the cover of the mater and by scratching the side of the disc of the matter. Under the circumstances, both the Courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to prove his entitlement to get the relief claimed in this case. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) March 14, 2011. JUDGE ak