1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL NO.351 OF 2008. Jangobhai Chottubhai Choudhary ..vs.. The Maharashtra State Electricity Board. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. Coram: C.L.PANGARKAR,J. Dated : 8th December, 2008. 1. Heard Shri N.R.Saboo, Advocate for the appellant and Shri U.N.Andhare, Advocate holding for Adv.R.K.Deshpande for the respondent. 2. This is an appeal by the plaintiff who was aggrieved by the order of the first appellate court. The plaintiff had instituted a civil suit claiming an injunction against the Electricity Board restraining it from recovering from him a sum of Rs.42,757/- being the bill amount. It as contended by the plaintiff that the bill that was sent by the defendant - Maharashtra State Electricity Board (M.S.E.B.) 2 was excessive and he was not liable to pay the same. 3. The State Electricity Board has contested the suit but the learned judge of the trial court had decreed the suit and permanently restrained the M.S.E.B. from recovering the said amount. Being aggrieved by that judgment and decree, the defendant – M.S.E.B. preferred an appeal before the District Judge. 4. The learned District Judge found that if there was any defect in the meter that was installed at the house of the plaintiff, the remedy that was open to the plaintiff was to approach the Electrical Inspector for testing of the meter and in fact no civil suit could have been filed. It was also found that the meter that was installed at the house of the plaintiff was not defective and plus and minus reading was within limits as provided under Rules. The learned District Judge, therefore, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff, therefore, preferred this second appeal. 3 5. After having gone through the judgment of the first appellate court, it is clear that the learned judge has rightly relied upon the provisions of Rule 57(1) and Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act. It is clear from this provisions that the appellant had remedy of approaching the electrical Inspector and still he filed the suit for injunction which was not maintenable. It was found by the learned judge of the appellate court that since the meter was not found to be defective beyond the permissible limits, the bill could not be said to be excessive and the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. Learned judge, to my mind, has rightly appreciated the law and evidence. There is, in fact, no substance in the appeal. The same is liable to be dismissed in limine. It is, therefore, dismissed. Shri Saboo, learned counsel for the appellant, however, submits that his client has already paid sum of Rs.37000/- and his client is ready to pay the balance of the amount within period of two months. The total amount recoverable now is Rs.5757/-. The appellant 4 should pay this amount within period of two months and also pay interest at 6% on the balance of the amount. After deducting Rs.10,000/-, Rs.12000/- and Rs.15000/- from the sum of Rs.45,757/- simple interest shall be calculated at 6% on principal amount i.e. after giving credit of each amount. JUDGE. chute