IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA 1909 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 4, 2008 SANJAY JINDAL ....... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. AK Walia, Advocate, for the appellant. AJAI LAMBA, J. The plaintiff has filed this Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings. Plaintiff-appellant, in the civil suit, sought a declaration to the effect that demand letter dated 4.8.2005 for Rs.59,874/- issued by the respondent-defendant i.e. Punjab State Electricity Board, was illegal. A further prayer for permanent injunction was made for restraining the defendants from disconnecting the electric connection due to non-payment of the said amount. The case set up by the plaintiff in the pleadings was that an electricity connection was taken and the bills were being paid regularly. Although nothing was due towards the defendants, however, the demand was made vide communication dated 4.8.2005, on the pretext that the meter was not working properly. The factum that the meter was not working RSA 1909 of 2008 2 properly was disputed. The defendants opposed the suit on the contention that the electricity meter was checked by the Flying Squad and as per the report of the Flying Squad, the meter was changed on 19.6.2004. The meter, however, started malfunctioning again and it was again changed as it was found dead. Bills for the period from August, 2004 to June, 2005 were sent to the plaintiff on average basis. During the intervening period, however, the plaintiff had got the electricity load enhanced from 7.80 KW to 27.25 KW. On audit, it was found that the bills for the last six months were sent on average basis on the earlier load and not on the enhanced load. In this backdrop of facts, the amount was sought to the recovered. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the plaintiff was not given sufficient opportunity to lead evidence and, therefore, the matter needs to be remanded back to the trial court for adjudication. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the impugned judgments. On consideration of the facts, it transpires that the issues were framed on 21.11.2005. On 22.10.2007, the examination-in-chief of the plaintiff was recorded and his cross-examination was deferred to the adjourned date i.e. 8.12.2007. On 8.12.2007, however, the plaintiff did not appear and, therefore, did not present himself for cross-examination. The case was, accordingly, adjourned to 2.1.2008. On 2.1.2008, again, the plaintiff did not appear for cross-examination. Counsel for the plaintiff made a statement before the Court that on the adjourned date, he RSA 1909 of 2008 3 would produce the entire evidence failing which the evidence of the plaintiff be deemed as having been closed. Showing indulgence, the matter was adjourned to 22.2.2008. The plaintiff, however, again did not come present on 22.2.2008 nor any other evidence was produced. In this backdrop of facts, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed by order dated 22.2.2008. Considering the above sequence of facts, it has been held that the plaintiff was given sufficient opportunity to lead evidence, however, he having failed to avail the opportunities, no ground for,interference was made out. I do not find any fault with the findings recorded by the first appellate Court in this regard in para-7 of the impugned judgment. The contention of the learned counsel that the plaintiff had gone to United States of America is not tenable or acceptable as a sufficient ground to adjourn the case repeatedly to await the presence of the plaintiff. The process of court cannot be held up by a litigant for personal whims and convenience once the court of law has been approached. Repeated adjournments granted on requests made on behalf of the plaintiff, show that sufficient opportunity indeed was given to the plaintiff. Finding no substantial question of law for interference, the appeal is dismissed in limine. July 4, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE