IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY THE TWELVETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 134 OF 2004 Between: Dummala Chandra Rao … Appellant-Plaintiff V/s. APSEB Represented by its Electrical (Principal Officer of the Board) Superintending Engineer (Operation) Rajahmundry, East Godavari Dist. … Respondent-Defendant Counsel for the Appellant : Smt.N(P) Anjana Devi Counsel for the Respondent : None appeared The Court made the following : Order follows next page. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 134 OF 2004 JUDGMENT : This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 03-12-2003 passed in AS.No. 22 of 1999 by the VII- Additional District Judge, Kakinada, confirming the judgment and decree dated 03-2-1999 passed in OS.No. 470 of 1994 by the I- Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari district. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff. None appeared for the respondent-defendant. 3. The brief facts required for considering the second appeal are extracted as follows: On 03-01-1994 the Assistant Engineer of the defendant- APSEB sent a notice to the plaintiff by calculating electricity consumption charges of Rs.8,532-00 for the year 1992-93. After receiving the notice, the plaintiff had sent a petition to the Divisional Electrical Engineer. Perusing the said petition, the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Kakinada made an endorsement on the petition to the effect that there is a mistake in the reading of the meter and the units have to be correctly calculated. Under the said endorsement, the Divisional Engineer also permitted the plaintiff to pay 1/6th of the amount mentioned in the notice pending final actual calculation as per the consumption. However, even subsequent to the said endorsement the Assistant Engineer disconnected the power supply to the premises of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit for mandatory injunction to restore the electricity connection to his premises. This is the case set out by the plaintiff in the plaint. 3. In the written statement, the defendant contended that the service connection is in the name of one V. Seetharamayya and the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. It is also further contended that the plaintiff has to pursue his remedies under the provisions of the Electricity Act and he cannot file a civil suit by invoking its jurisdiction. 4. The defendant also contended that the plaintiff admitted the dues to the department and prayed for instalments, and therefore, it is not for him to turn round and say that billing is not proper. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues: i) whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for ? ii) To what relief ? 6. Before the trial court, the plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. During the cross-examination of PW-1, the defendant marked Exs.B-1 to B-4. 7. It is true that the plaintiff requested in Ex.A-1 letter addressed to the Divisional Engineer (Operations) that the units were wrongly calculated and that the Divisional Engineer by making endorsement issued directions to the Assistant Accounts Officer to the effect that the amount appears to have been calculated wrongly and pending finalization, only an amount of 1/6th had to be collected from the plaintiff. But the defendant filed Ex.B-1 letter dated 03-1- 1994 addressed by the plaintiff to the Department wherein he admitted the bill amount and requested to pay the same in instalments. The plaintiff admitted Ex.B-1 letter in the course of his cross-examination. Similarly in Ex.B-4 letter addressed to the department, the plaintiff agreed to pay Rs.1500/- towards monthly instalment and said that he paid two instalments and later committed default. PW-1 in the cross-examination admitted that he made a request to the defendant to pay the bill amount of Rs.9550/- in respect of the service connection of the suit premises in instalments and in response there to Ex.B-2 letter was issued by the Assistant Accounts Officer. The plaintiff further agreed to pay the modified bill amount of Rs.8532/- without late fee. 8. Thus, there is categorical admission made by the plaintiff in his evidence before the trial court as well as in the above referred documents accepting the liability and he only prayed for instalments. Therefore, it is not open for him to contend that he is not liable to pay the amount to the department and that power supply has to be restored. 9. Further the trial court relied on 1997 (3) Civil Law Judgments-410 (PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD V/s. ASHWANI KUMAR) wherein it was held that there is dispute regarding the payment of electricity consumption charges on the ground of excess billing, the aggrieved party has to approach the forum mentioned in the Electricity (Supply) Act and Electricity Act and that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the said dispute. 10. Thus, both the courts below have rightly held that on account of his own admission, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction and also that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable before the civil court. The finding of fact recorded by both the courts below is based on sound reasoning and cannot be said to be perverse. The issue as to the maintainability of the suit before the civil court has also been correctly decided by both the courts below. 11. Therefore, there is no merit in the second appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE R . KANTHA RAO 12-07-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 134 OF 2004 Circulation No. 38 Date:12-07-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43