IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 623 of 2007 Date of Decision : July 07, 2008 Tarlochan Singh ....Appellant Versus Punjab State Electricity Board .....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. H.S. Sirohi, Advocate for the appellant. T.P.S. MANN, J. Regular Second Appeal No. 623 of 2007 The respondent filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of Rs. 52,371.50p. It was pleaded therein that an electricity connection bearing Account No. M-14.2006(SP) was installed in the premises of the appellant. The same was checked on 13.2.1989 and the meter was found to have stopped. Accordingly, the consumption bills for the period of 2/87 to 2/89 and 4/89 to 3/90 were overhauled, as a result of which a sum of Rs. 52,371.50p. was debited to his account. The appellant did not pay the said amount. However, he issued a cheque for Rs. 2149.50p. but even the same was dishonoured. The electricity connection was, accordingly, disconnected. As the appellant failed to pay the final electricity bill for Rs. 52,371.50p., inspite of issuance of several letters and reminders issued by the respondent, therefore, the suit was filed. The appellant contested the suit by pleading total denial. He denied that the meter was checked on 13.2.1989 in his presence as on that date, he was on a business tour to Chandigarh and Kalka. He never consumed the electricity units, as claimed by the respondent and, therefore, not liable to pay any amount. He even denied issuance of cheque for an amount of Rs. 2149.50p. After holding that the meter was checked by the Flying Squad when it was found to have stopped and the consumer/his representative signed Ex.P1 at two places, besides requesting that the entire load may be regularized, learned trial Court decreed the suit with costs for the recovery of the principal amount of Rs. 52,371.50p. with interest at the rate of 6% per - 2 Regular Second Appeal No. 623 of 2007 annum from the date of institution of the suit till the realisation of the decretal amount. The said decision was challenged by the appellant by filing an appeal, which was dismissed by learned District Judge, Ludhiana. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant has now filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of its case, the respondent relied on the testimonies of Arun Kumar Verma- PW1 and Gian Chand-PW2. The former was posted as Assistant Executive Engineer, Flying Squad, Khanna. He deposed about checking of the electricity connection in question on 13.2.1989 and the consumption meter was found stoped on all the three phases altough the consumer was found running his industry on the connection. The connected load of the consumer was detected as 20BHP plus 3 KWs. At that time, he was accompanied by two Junior Engineers, besides police guard. Gian Chand-PW2, who was Revenue Superintendent stated about preparing the statement of account, as per which an amount of Rs. 52,371.50p. was debited in the account of the appellant after overhauling his account. Afterwards a notice dated 30.3.1989 was served upon the appellant in pursuance of which the appellant issued a cheque dated 23.5.1990 for Rs. 2149.50p as part payment. The said cheque was, however, dishonoured on 30.5.1990. Even otherwise, the appellant, while appearing in his own defence admitted that he was doing the work of motor parts and an electric connection was installed in his premises which was checked by the Flying Squad on 13.2.1989 when the consumption meter was found to be not recording any consumption. - 3 Regular Second Appeal No. 623 of 2007 It is, thus, clear that the appellant was bound to pay the amount for which the suit had been filed against him by the respondent. The checking was done on 13.2.1989. The electric connection was temporarily disconnected on 23.10.1989. Before that, notice dated 30.3.1989 was served upon the appellant asking him to pay the amount of Rs. 52,371.50p. After receipt of the notice, the appellant issued cheque dated 23.5.1990 for Rs. 2149.50p. as part payment. This cheque was dishonoured on 30.5.1990. From the day the cheque was issued, the suit for recovery could be filed by the respondent within three years. The suit was actually filed on 5/30.10.1992 and, therefore, it was within the prescribed period of limitation. The concurrent findings arrived at by the learned Courts below are based on proper appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. No case is made out for any interference in the same. The substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellant, do not arise for consideration. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) July 07, 2008 JUDGE satish - 4 Regular Second Appeal No. 623 of 2007 Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO - 5