Delhi District Court
Vide This Order vs Unknown on 6 June, 2011
IN THE COURT OF MS.RUCHIKA SINGLA
CIVIL JUDGE-01(NORTH) : DELHI
Suit No.205/2009
Dharam Vir Singh v. NDPL
Present : None
ORDER:
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off the preliminary issue that " Whether there is no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD" as framed vide order dated 04.01.2010. The counsels for both the parties have argued on this issue. I have heard the arguments of both the parties and gone through the record carefully.
2. The counsel for defendant has argued that the present suit is not maintainable as there is no cause of action in the favour of the plaintiff.
3. To effectively decide this issue, it is incumbent that a brief summary of facts be reproduced here. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the registered consumer of electricity connection K No. 35400544736Y, which is installed at his premises no. 8653, Mandir Road, Kishan Ganj, Delhi-110006. Since 1994, the meter is being shown as faulty in the bills which are being issued by the defendant. Despite requests, the meter was not replaced. Now, in 2006, a bill was raised by the defendant for a sum of Rs.1,03,310/-. When the plaintiff contacted the defendant company, the defendant revise the bill to Rs. 63,520/-. However, the same is not correct. The present suit has been filed Dharam Vir Singh v. NDPL Suit no.205/2009 Page 1 of 3 seeking the declaration of this bill as null and void and for injunction that the defendant may be restrained from realizing this bill from the plaintiff.
4. The counsel for defendant has argued that the bill, which has been raised is on the basis of the actual consumption done by the plaintiff from 01.01.1994 to 20.04.2006. The payments against the provisional bills made by the plaintiff were deducted and now the plaintiff is liable to pay the bill as raised. Hence, it is argued that as the bill is on the basis of actual consumption done by the plaintiff, he is liable to clear the bill.
5. The Counsel for the defendant has further argued that the plaintiff has also claimed the relief of mandatory injunction that the meter be replaced, which has been satisfied. Hence, nothing remains in the present suit and it may be dismissed.
6. However, even if the relief of mandatory injunction has been satisfied, the other relief sought by the plaintiff also requires redressal. The arguments of the counsel for the defendant that the bill has been raised on the basis of actual consumption needs to be substantiated with evidence without which, at this stage, it can not be said that no cause of action arises in the favour of the plaintiff. Reference can also be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Texem Engineering v. Texcomash Export, 179 (2011) DLT 693 (DB)" wherein the Hon'ble Court hence reaffirmed that proving or disproving cause of action can only be considered after parties have gone to trial and have completed their evidence. Hence, whether or not, the impugned bill has been raised on the basis of actual consumption can be decided when the parties have led their evidence. Hence, at this stage, it can not be said that Dharam Vir Singh v. NDPL Suit no.205/2009 Page 2 of 3 no cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff to file the present suit.
7. Perusal of the record shows that the pleadings of the parties are complete. Hence, put up for admission/denial of documents and for framing of issues for 01.08.2011.
Announced in the Open Court [RUCHIKA SINGLA]
Today on 06.06.2011 CIVIL JUDGE-01(NORTH)
DELHI
Dharam Vir Singh v. NDPL Suit no.205/2009 Page 3 of 3