IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2470 OF 2003 Between: Sri Kishan .....PETITIONER AND Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2470 OF 2003 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 25 of Small Causes Act, is directed against the judgment, dated 17.02.2003, in O.S.No.59 of 2000, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad, whereunder and whereby, the suit, filed under Section 26 Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to declare the bill No.538, dated 01.05.2000, as null and void, was dismissed. 2. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present revision may be stated as follows: Plaintiff No.1 is the owner of the shop bearing M.No.5-4-41 situated at M.G.Road, Adilabad. Plaintiff No.2 is the tenant in the said shop, who is an electrician and runs a workshop in the said shop. The defendant agreed to supply electric power to the said premises on payment of charges in respect of Service Connection No.19104. As per the understandings between plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, plaintiff No.2 has to pay the electricity charges and he has been regularly paying the amount to the defendant. On 28.04.2000, he paid Rs.50/- for re- connection charges along with electricity charges of Rs.226/- up to 31.03.2000. In the first week of May, 2000, he received a bill bearing No.538, dated 01.05.2000, for Rs.2,054/- towards charges for consumption of electricity during March and April, 2000, from the defendant. It is pertinent to mention that the defendant raised the bill bi- monthly. Therefore, plaintiff No.2 questioned about the genuineness of demand. For that, the defendant did not give proper reply and promised that they will rectify the mistake. Surprisingly on 16.06.2000 the defendant disconnected the power supply to the said shop. Despite the request made by plaintiff No.2, it was not restored. The act of the defendant is unauthorized, illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. Plaintiff No.2 is an electrician running a shop and power supply to the said shop is a regular necessity. Hence, the plaintiffs requested to restore the power supply to the said shop and also declare the bill as null and void. 4. The defendant filed written statement stating that the plaintiffs filed the suit misconceiving the facts and without truth. He further submits that plaintiff No.1 is the owner of the shop and plaintiff No.2 is the tenant of the said shop. Originally the shop was provided with Service Connection No.88 and the said service connection was released in the name of one late Sri Ganpath Lal, who is the father of plaintiff No.1 and he might have died and the service connection is continuing in his name. Plaintiff No.1 did not apply for transfer of the said service connection in his name. The building is consisting of three floors viz., ground floor having Service Connection No.88, first floor and second floor. The other two mulgies were having service connections bearing Nos.44 and 81 and occupied by the tenants. Plaintiff No.1 applied for service connection. Service connections bearing Nos.44, 81 and 88 are for ground floor; service connection No.6384 is for first floor and service connection No.14392 is for second floor. These are the link services to each other. An amount of Rs.23,205/- was outstanding in respect of Service Connection No.88. To avoid and to escape from payment of that payment, plaintiff No.1 illegally without consent and knowledge of the board officers, got dismantled the said services and got a separate service connection bearing No.19104. The acts of plaintiff No.1 is illegal and the defendant after coming to know about the same, inspected the building bearing service connection No.88. Thus, service connection No.19104 is also a link service. In spite of repeated demands made by the Board, plaintiff No.1 did not pay the outstanding amount in respect of service connection No.88 and as per the legal provision under clause 42.3 the service connection was disconnected due to non-payment of the due amount. The plaintiffs have suppressed the main facts and obtained ex parte injunction for reconnection and as a matter of fact the plaintiffs are not entitled to get the power supply restored to service connection No.19104. If plaintiff No.2 is put to inconvenience and hardship, the defendant is not liable for the same. Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed by the trial Court: "1. Whether the bill bearing No.538, dated 01.05.2000, for the period of 3/2000 to 4/2000 for Rs.2,054/- is null and void and illegal? 2. To what relief?" 6. On behalf of the plaintiffs, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A1 and A2 were got marked. On behalf of the defendant, DW.1 was examined, but no documents were marked. 7. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are liable to pay Rs.2,280/- to the defendant and dismissed the suit. Challenging the same, the present revision petition is filed by plaintiff No.1. 8. Now the point for determination is whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 9. Ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the judgment of the trial Court unless the findings are perverse or not based upon any admissible evidence. If the findings are shown to be perverse, then to prevent miscarriage of justice, the order under challenge needs to be interfered with. 10. PW.1 is looking after the building bearing M.No.5-4-41 situated at M.G.Road, Adilabad. He has taken power supply to the shop bearing service connection No.19104. Plaintiff No.2 was the tenant of the said building, who paid the bills up to March, 2000. In the month of March- April 2000 plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 received notice under Ex.A2 to pay Rs.2,054/-. When they approached the defendant, they did not give proper reply. Hence, they filed the suit. 11. In view of the fact that respondent No.1 raised a claim for the service connection with regard to the dues to a tune of Rs.2,280/-, it is for respondent No.1 to explain the same. As per the evidence of respondent No.1 it is clear that there are three service connections to three shops owned by the petitioner/plaintiff No.1. For the service connection bearing No.88 an amount of Rs.23,205/- was due. It seems that old service connection bearing No.88 was replaced by new service connection No.19104. That new service connection was given without giving any intimation to respondent No.1 herein. The said fact was observed by the trial Court. So, the payment of dues, if any, for the use of electricity on the service connection has to be established by respondent No.1. All the records would be available with respondent No.1 to show that as to how the petitioner is due to an amount of Rs.2,280/-. Except the oral evidence of DW.1, no documentary evidence is produced to show that the demand notice has to be accepted as true, valid and correct. Even DW.1 admitted that the old service connection bearing No.88 was dismantled without notice to the department and a new connection was given in the place of old connection. The best evidence rule, which governs the production of evidence in Courts, requires that the best evidence of which the case in its nature is susceptible should always be presented. When better evidence is withheld, it is only fair to presume that the party withholding the evidence had some motive for not producing it. Such is the case, it is his duty to examine the persons who disconnected the old supply and what are the amounts due by the date of disconnection of service connection No.88. All the relevant documents, which are exclusively in the custody of respondent No.1, have not been filed. It had suppressed the relevant documents. If it produces the same, it would go against respondent No.1. The Court may presume that the evidence which could be, and is not, produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it, an adverse inference can be drawn under Section 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, this aspect of the case has not been considered by the trial Court. Hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned judgment, dated 17.02.2003 in O.S.No.59 of 2000 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad, and consequently, O.S.No.59 of 2000 is decreed as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J January 27, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2470 OF 2003 January 27, 2011