R. S. A No. 3514 of 2006 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. S. A No. 3514 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision : 2.12.2008 Pal Singh and another ..... Appellants vs Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. D. S. Pheruman, Advocate, for the appellants. Rajesh Bindal J. The defendants are in Regular Second Appeal before this court against the judgment and decree of the learned appellate court whereby that of the trial court was reversed in a suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for recovery of Rs. 1,61,206/- on account of demand raised for theft of energy by the appellants/defendants. Briefly, the facts are that on checking of the factory premises of the appellants/defendants on 10.3.2000, it was found that defendant firm was indulging in committing theft of energy, on account of which demand of Rs. 1,61,206/- was raised. Demand notice to that effect was issued on 11.3.2000. The appellants having failed to pay the amount, the suit came to be filed on 20.8.2002 more than two years 5 months after the demand. The trial court dismissed the suit primarily on the ground that before raising the demand, no show cause notice was issued to the appellants. However, learned lower appellate court reversed the findings and decreed the suit by holding that theft of energy was proved and no notice before imposing the penalty or raising the amount on account of theft of energy was required to be given. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that they have been acquitted in the criminal trial in the case registered against them for theft of energy and this fact is sufficient enough to non-suit the respondent even for recovery of the amount due from them. He further submitted that the suit had been filed by incompetent person and on account the same was R. S. A No. 3514 of 2006 (2) not maintainable and should have been dismissed as such and so the appeal filed by them before the learned lower appellate court. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. It is not disputed that factory premises were checked on 10.3.2000. As is claimed by the respondent, the appellants were found indulging in theft of energy for which a sum of Rs. 1,61,206/- was calculated and notice no. 757 dated 11.3.2000 was issued. The said notice was challenged by the appellants in a civil suit which was dismissed vide judgment dated Ex. P-6 (as is noticed in para 8 of the judgment of the learned lower appellate court). Meaning thereby that as far as validity of the notice raising demand of Rs. 1,61,206/- against the appellants is concerned, the same was upheld. The amount having not been paid, the suit came to be filed in which the validity of the notice of demand was again sought to be challenged as a defence which cannot be permitted as the validity thereof had already been unsuccessfully challenged by the appellants. As far as the argument raised by the appellants regarding the suit having been filed by the incompetent person is concerned, a perusal of the issues framed by the learned court below shows that no such issue was framed. Even on the issue regarding the maintainability of the suit, no arguments were addressed by the appellants even though the onus was on them. The same being a mixed question of fact and law cannot be permitted to be raised before this court in Regular Second Appeal. The findings recorded by the learned lower appellate court are plain and simple findings of fact giving rise to no question of law much less a substantial question of law. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 2.12.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge