( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 2008 Sharda Mahila Griha Udyog & anr. .. Applicants Versus Maharashtra State Electricity Board .. Respondent Mrs. C.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicants. Shri H.M. Karwa, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 04.09.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Mrs. C.S. Deshmukh for the applicants and Adv. Shri H.M. Karwa for the respondent. This Revision Application is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Judge, Jalgaon, in Civil Appeal No. 228 of 2001, decided on 26.02.2007, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhusawal, in Regular Civil Suit No. 121 of 1995, decided on 21.03.2001, was set aside and the present applicants were directed to pay amount of Rs. 9183/- along with interest at ( 2 ) the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till actual payment. 2. The learned advocates for the parties have taken me through the judgments of both the Courts. It is stated that the respondent - Electricity Board had supplied electricity to appellant No.2 - Sharda Kank, who is wife of appellant No. 1 - Moreshwar Kank. They were carrying out a small scale industry, by name ‘Sharda Mahila Griha Udyog’, at Bhusawal. They were operating video center in Gat No. 140/2, since 1990-91. On their application, electric supply was given by respondent No.1. Their consumer number was C-104. The electricity charges were not paid from January, 1993 to May, 1993. They showed inability to pay bill for future period and therefore electricity supply was permanently disconnected from 4th March, 1994 and it is said that the amount as on that date was Rs.9183=30 ps. and for recovery of the same, the suit was filed. 3. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. However, the District Court allowed the suit and decreed it and it is this decree which is challenged in this revision application. ( 3 ) Both the learned advocates have taken me through the judgments of both the Courts and the record and proceedings. It is clear from notice Exh.25 that the amount due as on 03.01.1994 was Rs.5453=73 ps. No payment was paid from April, 1993 and the dues at that time were Rs. 3792=38 ps. It is not disputed that the minimum charges until permanent disconnection were Rs.500/- p.m. Respondent – Electricity Board is also entitled to claim interest on unpaid amount as per the agreement. Copy of agreement is produced on record. Term No. 3 was regarding payment of minimum charges of Rs. 500/- p.m., even if electricity is not utilized. As per Exh. 53 also the amount due as on 08.01.1994 was Rs.5453=73 ps. Applicant No.1 by letter (Exh.26) dated 22 May, 1993, has specifically admitted that minimum charges per month were Rs. 500/-. He could not pay said amount. He has also stated that he has paid entire bill till end of 31st December, 1992, but no receipt is produced to show that amount of Rs. 5453=73 was paid, as per demand notice Exh.25. Request was made to issue final bill as on 31st May, 1993 after permanently disconnecting the electricity and bill be issued after deducting the deposit amount. So, if we consider all these documents and the fact that there is no receipt on record ( 4 ) regarding payment of Rs. 5453=73, in my opinion, it cannot be said that first Appellate Court committed any error in decreeing the suit. In this view of the matter, this Civil Revision Application has no merit. The same deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/SEP09/cra143.08