REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.2531 OF 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2531 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 23, 2011 M/s. Rubi Oil Mills through its partners .... Appellant Versus Punjab State Electricity Board & others .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff-M/s. Rubi Oil Mills through its four partners has filed the instant second appeal after remaining unsuccessful in both the courts below. Plaintiff has installed Oil Mills having electricity connection from the defendants (Punjab State Electricity Board and its officers). Officers of the Board checked the premises of the plaintiff on 04.02.2005. plaintiff's case is that its partner Ramesh Kumar was present in the premises of the mills at the time of checking but he was not called during the checking. On the contrary, after preparing the checking report, Ramesh Kumar was called to sign the report. Ramesh Kumar wanted to endorse his objection on the report, but Board officers did not allow him to do so and, therefore, he did not sign the report. Defendants disconnected the plaintiff's electricity connection. Defendants thereafter raised demand of Rs.2,07,490/- (rupees two lacs seven thousand and four hundred ninety only) from the plaintiff vide memo dated REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.2531 OF 2010 -2- 08.02.2005 on account of alleged theft of electricity and unauthorized load. The plaintiff challenged the said demand in the suit claiming it to be illegal and null and void. Defendants resisted the suit and inter alia pleaded that plaintiff had installed connected load of 80.813KW instead of sanctioned load of 69.80KW. It was also found by the checking party that plaintiff was indulging in theft of electricity by controlling the recording of consumption in the meter by illegal means by connecting CT cable wires illegally. It was thus pleaded that plaintiff's electricity connection was rightly disconnected and the impugned demand was rightly made for unauthorized load and for theft of electricity. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Zira vide judgment and decree dated 20.02.2009 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District, Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 29.10.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Plaintiff's partner Ramesh Kumar appeared in the witness box and broadly stated according to his version. On the other hand, Sohan Singh Kaler, Senior Executive Engineer appeared as DW-1 and reiterated the defendants' version and produced checking report Exhibit D-1 besides other documents. Sole statement of plaintiff's partner is not sufficient to discard or disbelieve the checking report of the defendants, because the checking party included senior officers also. Senior Executive Engineer who was also in the REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.2531 OF 2010 -3- checking party has appeared in the witness box to reiterate the findings of the checking done by the defendants. In the checking report, details of the connected load have been mentioned, depicting that the connected load was 80.813KW, although admittedly sanctioned load was 69.80KW only. There is no reason why false checking report would be made by the Board officers. There is no allegation of any malice or malafide against them. As regards theft of electricity, CT cable wires were found connected to commit theft of electricity. Necessary diagram has also been prepared in the checking report to depict the manner of theft of electricity. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that admittedly seals of the meter box were found intact at the time of checking and there was no tampering with the seals by the consumer-plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff could not possibly commit electricity theft. The contention appears to be forceful on first blush but on carefully going through the evidence on record, the contention cannot be accepted. It was found by the checking party at the time of checking that CT cable wires had been connected to commit theft of electricity. How it was done without tampering with the seals could be known to the plaintiff only. The defendants have pointed out one possibility i.e. that at the time of affixation of the seals by the officials of the Board, the plaintiff might have got the CT cable wires connected to commit theft of electricity. It is correct that there is no such specific pleading in the written statement. However, in the written statement, the defendants were not required to plead as to how the plaintiff managed to connect CT cable wires to commit the theft of electricity because it would have been hypothetical on the part of defendants. On the contrary, the defendants pleaded in detail the factum of connection of CT cable wires and the factum of REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.2531 OF 2010 -4- theft of electricity being committed by the plaintiff and also the manner in which the CT cable wires stood connected. Defendants possibly could not know as to how and when the plaintiff connected the CT cable wires and it was only in cross-examination of DW-1 Sohan Singh Kaler that he stated about the possibility of the CT Cable wires being connected in connivance with officials of the Board at the time of sealing of the meter. The said possibility which came out in cross-examination was not required to be pleaded by the defendants in the written statement. The material fact of theft of electricity being committed and the manner how it was being done has been duly pleaded. Consequently, the aforesaid contention raised by the counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below against the plaintiff-appellant is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons and is based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 23rd February, 2011 'raj'