RSA No. 5101 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 5101 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.5.2011. Gobind Singh .......Appellant Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate for the respondents. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff-Nigam had filed a suit for recovery against the appellant on the ground of non payment of bills for January 1996 to the tune of ` 22,824/-, March 1996 for ` 73,698/-, May 1996 for ` 13,610/- and July 1996 for ` 81/-. It was further averred that on account of non payment of the aforesaid amount, telephone connection of the defendant had been disconnected by the plaintiffs. Defendant, in his written statement, averred that the plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disconnecting the telephone connection. In the said suit, the matter has been referred to the Arbitrator by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana on 25.3.1998. RSA No. 5101 of 2010 (O&M) -2- On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of Rs. 1,10,213/- as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so at what rate and to what extent? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act ad conduct from filing the present suit? OPD 5. Whether no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiffs to file the present suit? If so its effect? OPP 6. Whether the suit is liable to be stayed as the matter has been referred to the arbitrator? OPD 7. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPD 8. Relief.” Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 13.2.2008, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. The said judgment and decree were upheld, in appeal filed by the defendant, by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 20.9.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. In the present case, admittedly, the telephone connection bearing No. 455944 was got installed by the RSA No. 5101 of 2010 (O&M) -3- defendant on 29.12.1987 for running his business. The defendant was also enjoying the STD facility. The defendant had failed to make the payment of the bills (Ex. P-4 to Ex. P-7). There is no force in the argument, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that, since in the suit filed by the appellant seeking injunction qua disconnection of the telephone connection the matter has been referred to the arbitrator, the present suit was liable to be dismissed. The appellant had failed to establish by placing on record the pleadings of the earlier suit. Admittedly, the plaintiff has been using the telephone connection but has failed to deposit the bills. The plaintiff-Nigam is providing telephone facility to the consumers and in case the consumers do not pay the bills, it will become difficult for the plaintiff-Nigam to do its duty of providing telephone facility to the consumers. It is not the case of the appellant that he has deposited the amount qua the bills in question. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 04, 2011 Gurpreet