RSA No.1554 of 2005 :1: In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 04.02.2008. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through Executive Engineer, Operation D.H.B.V.N. Faridabad and another. ... Appellants. Versus Tirlok Chand and another ... Respondents. Present: Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate. Mr.KP Sidhu, Advocate. -- PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral) This is defendants Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below. Respondent Tirlok Chand filed a suit for declaration challenging the notice bearing No.1350 dated 19.10.2002, demanding a sum of Rs.19,364/- from the plaintiff allegedly on account of penalty for alleged theft of the electricity. Admittedly, the plaintiff was having an electricity connection bearing No.MT-11-1934. A raid was conducted by the officials of the electricity Board on the premises of the plaintiff on 18.10.2002. It has been alleged by the defendant-appellants herein that the RSA No.1554 of 2005 :2: meter was found stopped by providing loop between incoming terminal to outgoing terminal. The checking was conducted in the presence of the plaintiff and two members of his family. It is also a specific case of the defendants that the plaintiff refused to sign the report which was prepared at the site. Based upon the alleged theft of energy, the impugned bill was served upon the plaintiff. Both the learned Courts below have found that checking was not conducted in the presence of any family members of the plaintiff and even the details of the amount sought to be recovered, are not given in the bill. It is admitted case of the appellants that at the time of alleged raid/checking, there was no other person except the family members of the plaintiff. The officials of the Board who conducted the raid have also stated that they were unable to procure any independent witness from the locality. The trial Court has found that there was no basis for working out the amount sought to be recovered vide its judgment and decree dated 04.05.2004. An appeal was also preferred by the appellants herein before the learned Lower Appellate Court which also came to be dismissed by the learned Lower Appellate Court on 31.08.2004. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has argued that since the family members refused to sign the report, the officials had no option but to workout the amount. The findings recorded by the learned Courts below is based upon appreciation of evidence/material on record. The plea raised by the defendant-appellants does not constitute substantial question of law. Even otherwise, in this appeal no substantial question of RSA No.1554 of 2005 :3: law arises. I find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 04.02.2008. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE