RSA NO.1275 OF 2008 :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 25.7.2008 Punjab State Electricity Board and others ....Appellants VERSUS Dara Singh …Respondent CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr. APS Mann, Advocate for appellants Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The present appeal has been filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. Respondent-Dara Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking a restraint order against the appellant- Board from disconnecting the electric connection bearing Account No. H-405 in the name of the plaintiff, respondent herein, in his agricultural land situated in revenue estate of Village Harchandpura. It is the case of the plaintiff that initially, electric connection bearing Account No.H- 74 was issued in the name of Dayal Singh son of Chanan Singh, resident of Village Harchandpura. The said connection was transferred from the name of Dayal Singh to the plaintiff and a new account No.H-405 was allotted to him. Plaintiff paid the transfer RSA NO.1275 OF 2008 :2: charges/fees vide receipt no.104 contained in D-31982 and since then he is using the said electric connection and is paying the bills regularly. It is further mentioned that a passbook has also been issued to the plaintiff earlier in the year 1998. There was free electric supply to the agriculturists under the government policy, and an endorsement was made in the passbook, in this regard. In the year 2003, the plaintiff paid the consumption charges upto the month of April, 2004 regularly. However, in the month of April, 2004, the plaintiff approached the defendant-Board for deposit of the electric charges. The employees refused to accept the consumption charges. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit. The defendants, on being put to notice, contested the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has procured the transfer of electric connection bearing Account No.H-74 from Dayal Singh’s name to his name on the basis of the forged documents and an enquiry in this regard was conducted by the SDO, PSEB and accordingly, the connection was cancelled on 4.5.1998. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed as many as six issues. Both the parties led their respective evidence. After appreciating the evidence, the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff vide its judgment and decree dated 1.12.2006. The defendants filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court which also came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.2007 passed by the District Judge, Patiala. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-Board has argued that the plaintiff procured the transfer of the connection on RSA NO.1275 OF 2008 :3: misrepresentation of facts and forged documents and enquiry in this regard was held by SDO and thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to enjoy the electric connection. His further contention is that electric connection bearing Account No.H-74 is still existing and is in operation. There is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts that the plaintiff has deposited the electricity bills right from the year 1998 upto 2004 against proper receipts Ex.P-1 to P-4. It is clearly established that the alleged cancellation on 4.5.1998 is only on the papers, but never implemented. The so-called enquiry conducted by the appellants-Board has also not been produced on record nor the SDO who allegedly conducted the enquiry, appeared as a witness. The appellants-Board also failed to produce any entry in this regard regarding the existence and operation of the earlier connection bearing Account No.H-74 in the name of Dayal Singh. Plaintiff has proved by documentary evidence that electric connection bearing Account No.H-74 was transferred in his name, after charging the transfer fee on 16.1.1998 and a receipt No.104 was also issued in this regard. Appellants-Board has also not denied the payment of the consumption charges upto 2004. There is no material on record to show that cancellation was made by holding an enquiry and after providing opportunity to the plaintiff. Both the courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact. No substantial question of law arises. I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 25.7.2008 MFK RSA NO.1275 OF 2008 :4: RSA NO.1275 OF 2008 :5: