IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3687 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: September 21, 2011. Pawan Kumar and another. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 23.11.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak dismissing appeal filed by present appellants-plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 05.05.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Rohtak vide which suit filed by present appellants-plaintiffs was dismissed. RSA No.3687 of 2009 I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, present appellants-plaintiffs filed suit for declaration that checking report, memo and the penalty bill, as mentioned in para no.2 of the plaint, issued by respondents-defendants are illegal, null and void with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants from effecting recovery from the appellants-plaintiffs. Admittedly, appellants-plaintiffs are in occupation of premises in dispute having electricity connection bearing account no. L-588. The premises was checked by the officials of respondent department on 14.05.2002 and as per checking report, it was found that the electricity meter was tampered with and theft of electricity was being committed. Learned trial Court after appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties dismissed the suit filed by present appellants-plaintiffs. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants- plaintiffs that simultaneously criminal proceedings were also initiated against the appellant-plaintiff and however, he has been acquitted by the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rohtak in those proceedings. However, it has been rightly observed by learned first appellate Court that simply because the appellant has been acquitted in criminal proceedings, it cannot be said that he is not liable to make payment of penalty for unauthorized use of electricity after tampering with the electricity meter. The checking of meter was done in 2 RSA No.3687 of 2009 the presence of mother and servant of the appellant, who were present at the time of checking. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 21, 2011 JUDGE ‘om’ 3