FA/3129/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 3129 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI : ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= LAXMIBEN HIRABHAI - Appellant(s) Versus GEB - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR YOGESH S LAKHANI for Appellant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.2.6,1.2.7 None for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 01/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.08.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), FA/3129/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT Porbandar in Special Civil Suit No. 60 of 2002 whereby, the said suit was allowed. 2.0 The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are as under; 2.1 On 20.01.2001, when the checking squad of the respondent – Board carried out inspection in the agricultural field, belonging to the father of the appellant, they noticed that the appellant had committed theft of electricity for the purpose of running submersible motors in the field. Therefore, the squad prepared a Rojkam with respect to the aforesaid incident at the scene of offence itself. 2.2 After completing all legal formalities, the respondent – Board issued a Bill amounting to Rs.4,57,350.46 to the appellant. As the appellant did not pay the said amount, Notice dated 12.02.2002 was issued to the appellant. In spite of the issuance of the said Notice, the appellant did not pay the amount in question. Therefore, the appellant filed the suit in question before the FA/3129/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Porbandar claiming an amount of Rs.5,20,800.17, which also included the delay payment charges. The trial Court, after hearing the parties and after considering the evidence on record, decreed the suit in favour of the respondent – Board. Hence, this appeal. 3.0 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. From the evidence on record, more particularly, the Rojkam [Exhibit – 16] prepared by the checking squad of the respondent – Board at the scene of offence itself, it transpires that the appellant had committed theft of electricity. The appellant has not produced any evidence on record or had examined any witness/s in support of his case before the trial Court. Moreover, nothing incriminating has come out from the cross-examination of the Officers of the respondent – Board who had carried out the raid in question. Hence, I find no reasons to disbelieve the case of the respondent – Board. 4.0 Looking to the entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the Court below has FA/3129/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT rightly decreed the suit in favour of the respondent – Board. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Court below and hence, find no reasons to interfere in this appeal. 5.0 Hence, the appeal stands summarily dismissed. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*