RSA No. 2634 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. RSA No. 2634 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on 21.7.2010. Radhey Shyam --Appellant vs. Uttar Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd -- Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate, for the appellant Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, Plaintiff is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below whereby his suit filed for declaration and mandatory injunction has been dismissed. Insofar as the question of re-connection of electricity connection is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has not made any submission because according to him, electric connection has been reconnected. The entire emphasis has been laid upon the correction of the bill in respect of which the learned First Appellate Court has observed as under:- “The above discussion of parties evidence makes the matter manifestly clear that Plaintiff was running correctly and RSA No. 2634 of 2010 (O&M) 2 not fast because Plaintiff's own witness PW3 has stated the said fact on oath. PW1 has brought the record of the department which is available form Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/E and the said record confirms about the meter reading, consumption charges, surcharges and the additional charges for the penalty of disconnection. So, record placed by the Plaintiff on the file itself goes against him. There is nothing in the record which suggests or proves that any illegal, irrational amount has been charged by the department from the Plaintiff. Every amount is explained in the ledger and wholly stated by the Plaintiff's own witnesses as well as the Defendants' witnesses. The question of fact that the meter of the Plaintiff was running 52% fast, was upon the Plaintiff to prove but there is a simple oral evidence of the Plaintiff in this connection. Admittedly in order to check the fastness of the meter installed, the department has affixed a check meter, as evidence from ex.PW1/F. The perusal of the said document reveals that Ram Phal, one of the official of the department has visited the Plaintiff on 05.01.2001 but the Plaintiff has not allowed him to remove the meter. The existing meter as well as check meter was not removed by the department as the same was resisted by the Plaintiff. So, the Plaintiff himself was in fault in the matter in question. Since both the meters (meter installed and check meter) are not sent to laboratory and no actual meter reading are placed or proved on the file, so how can it be presumed that installed meter was running fast. Burden of proving this fact was upon the Plaintiff, RSA No. 2634 of 2010 (O&M) 3 but there is not cogent and relevant evidence on the file to prove the said fact. The oral evidence of PW2 can not be accepted as gospel truth. As the Plaintiff himself has not allowed to remove both the meters, so he can not be allowed to take benefit of his own wrongs. Without the laboratory test of the meters, no conclusion can be arrived that the meter of the Plaintiff was running fast or slow, so contention of the Plaintiff in this connection is neither believable nor acceptable and the trial court has rightly observed so while deciding issue No.2.” Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to raise any question of law much-less substantial in terms of Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, CPC) except for arguing the case on facts. It is now well settled that in the second appeal, this Court could only adjudicate substantial question of law and not the question of fact which is already decided by both the Courts below and is also not the spirit of Section 100 of the CPC. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. No costs. 21.7.2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge