1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Second Appeal No.366 Of 2009 With Civil Application No.5481 Of 2009 Dagdu s/o Kondiram Ubhedal. ... Appellant. Versus Assistant Engineer, Sub Division Newasa, M.S.E.B. Kadu Galli, Newasa, Taluka Newasa, District Ahmednagar. ... Respondent. -------- Shri. N.B. Narwade, Advocate for appellant. Shri. S.M. Godsay, Advocate for respondent. -------- CORAM: R.M. BORDE, J. DATE: 17th FEBRUARY 2010 PER COURT : 1) The original plaintiff has approached this Court raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the Courts below. The 2 plaintiff instituted the suit claiming declaration and mandatory injunction against the respondent in respect of electricity bill issued by the defendant. The defendant issued the bill for the month of July 1994 seeking recovery of amount of Rs.16,917.05 paise towards charges for using electricity. It was found on inspection by the officers of the Department that the plaintiff had used electrical energy in clandestine manner. After considering the contention raised by the plaintiff, the trial Court was not convinced with regard to the merits of the contentions and as such dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 18-9-2003. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has been confirmed in appeal presented by the plaintiff before the First Appellate Court being Regular Civil Appeal No.114 of 2003 on 29th January 2009. 3 2) I have perused the judgments recorded by both the Courts below. 3) I do not find any perversity in the reasoning recorded by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. 4) Civil Application No.5481 of 2009 does not survive, it stands dismissed. (R.M. BORDE, J.) rsl/ sa.366.2009