Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Padala Harinath Reddy vs Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board ... on 26 September, 2006
Equivalent citations: AIR2007AP109, 2007(1)ALD357, 2007(4)ALT672, AIR 2007 ANDHRA PRADESH 109, 2007 AIHC NOC 224, (2007) 1 ANDHLD 357, (2007) 4 ANDH LT 672, (2007) 1 BANKJ 758, (2007) 3 CIVLJ 208
JUDGMENT P.S. Narayana, J.
1. Heard Sri N. Siva Reddy, the Counsel representing appellant and Sri Sreeramulu Reddy, the Counsel representing respondent.
2. This Court on 21-5-1996 made the following order:
Admit in view of substantial questions of law especially the one relating to limitation.
3. Sri Siva Reddy, the learned Counsel representing appellant would submit that the only substantial question of law which would arise for consideration is "whether the Courts below had arrived at correct conclusion on the question of limitation in the facts and circumstances of the case?" The learned Counsel pointed out to the respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the Court of the first instance and also the appellate Court and would contend that if the period from the date of the appellate order - Ex.A.11 to be reckoned with, the same is beyond the period of limitation.
4. On the contrary, the learned Counsel representing respondent would contend that inasmuch as some further time had been specified under Ex.A.11, the period to be reckoned with after thirty days, after the making of the order - Ex.A.11 and hence, the same is within the period of limitation.
5. Heard the Counsel and perused the findings recorded by the Court of the first instance and also the appellate Court.
6. The unsuccessful defendant in O.S. No. 33/85 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Ramachandrapuram and the appellant in A.S. No. 18/93 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ramachandrapuram, had preferred this appeal. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board - respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 10,747-60 ps., with subsequent interest at 12 1/2% per annum. The parties hereinafter would be referred to as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the original suit for the purpose of convenience.
7. The plaintiff pleaded that the plaintiff is an agriculturist owning lands and had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff Board for agricultural electricity service connection No. 17481 of Konkuduru village and the said agreement was entered into on 21-1-1977 with the plaintiff Board. The contracted and connected load in 10 H.P. and the electricity supply was released. On 6-6-1978 at 14.40 hours P. Sriramarao, Junior Engineer (DPE), Rajahmundry accompanied by M. Raghavendra Rao S.O., Rayavaram, P. Satyanarayana, Lineman, Pandalapaka, P. Venkanna, Helper, Konkuduru and VVSRR Narasimha Rao, Junior Engineer, D.P.E., Rajahmundry surprised and checked the defendant's service connection and during the check the following incriminating points were found:
1) The meter cover 3 seals are found to be counterfeit seals imitating the A.P.S.E.B. Laboratory sealing plier of the impression APSEB MRT R-2.
2) Supply is not available to check the working condition of the meter.
3) Consumption allowed to be recorded by the meter is low. The said observation proves that the defendant pilferred electrical energy by removing the original seals of the meter putting back actually recorded consumption and putting counterfeit seals to the meter cover and thus caused immense loss to the respondent Board. At the time of inspection, Karri Sattireddi, a friend of the defendant and Padala Srinivasa Reddy, the son of the defendant also were present and on information passed on to the Assistant Engineer, Operation, Ramachandrapuram, regarding the inspection, the said Assistant Engineer - P.W.2 disconnected the service connection and issued a provisional order dt.7.7.1978 - Ex.A.4 to the defendant assessing the loss caused to the Board at Rs. 9,212-50 ps., in addition to the service charge of Rs. 50/- and reconnection charges of Rs. 20/- giving option to the defendant to pay half of the said amount + Rs. 50/- + Rs. 20/- as mentioned above if the defendant wanted reconnection. The said notice was received by the defendant on the same day but however the defendant did not avail the option given by the plaintiff Board. The Divisional Engineer, Operation, issued a show cause notice dt.4.8.1978 - Ex.A.6 to the defendant to show cause why the amount provisionally assessed by P.W.2 should not be confirmed in addition to the supervision and respondents-connection charges Rs. 50/- + Rs. 20/- respectively. The defendant had given option to submit his objections within 30 days and the said show cause notice was acknowledged by the defendant on 20.8.78 - Ex.A.7. After considering the objections filed by the defendant, the final order dt.6-3-79 was passed - Ex.A.8 and the loss sustained by the Board is estimated at Rs. 6620-50 ps., in addition to Rs. 50/-, Rs. 20/- and Rs. 30/- towards supervision, reconnection and meter testing charges. The final order was served on 16.3.79 - Ex.A.9. The meter in question was tested in the MRT Laboratory on 16-12-1978 in the presence of the defendant who had witnessed the test and attested the remarks in the review register. In the M.R.T. Laboratory, it was found that all the seals of the meter cover were of counterfeit nature. The defendant preferred an appeal before the Superintending Engineer, Rajahmundry, who had transferred the same to the Supdt.Engineer, Assessments, Vijayawada circle and after careful consideration, the amount assessed in the final order was confirmed and the defendant was directed to pay the amount of Rs. 6620-50 ps., towards the loss sustained by the Board on account of the malpractice by the defendant in addition to the charges. The defendant did not pay the said amount within 30 days from the date of service of the order of the Appellate Authority and the plaintiff Board had given reasonable opportunity at every stage but however the defendant had not availed the said opportunity. Since the defendant did not pay the amount, a notice of demand - Ex.A.16 was issued calling upon him to pay the assessment amount and the same was acknowledged by him on 16-7-1982 - Ex.A.17. Subsequently registered notices were issued under Ex.A.18 and Ex.A.20 and they were acknowledged by Ex.A.19 and Ex.A.21 respectively. In such circumstances, the suit was filed by the plaintiff Board for recovery of the amount.
8. The appellant herein - the defendant had taken the plea that the Superintending Engineer, Assessments, Vijayawada, passed final order on 30-1- 1982 fixing the liability of payment mentioned therein and the suit was filed on 28-2-1985. Hence, the suit is barred by time. The suit was not filed before the lapse of 3 years. Certain other facts also had been pleaded.
9. The Court of first instance settled the following issues:
1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount with 12 1/2% p.a., from the defendant?
3) Whether the defendant never committed any act of the malpractice?
4) To what relief?
10. In the Court of first instance, P.Ws. 1 to 4 and D.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.21 and Ex.B.1 were marked. On appreciation of the evidence available on record, the Court of first instance arrived at a conclusion that the suit is not barred by limitation and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal A.S. No. 18/93 was preferred on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ramachandrapuram and the Appellate Court also had arrived at the same conclusion, ultimately dismissing the appeal. Hence, the present Second Appeal is preferred.
11. Ex.A.11 - Order made by the Appellate Authority and the contents thereof would be of some importance for the purpose of deciding the question in controversy. Several other factual aspects are not in serious controversy even otherwise in the light of the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, the said factual aspects need not detain this Court any longer. It may be appropriate to have a look at the relevant portion of Ex.A.11 - Order:
The appellant is called upon to pay the above amount, less the amount already paid, if any, in this regard to Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office, Ramachandrapuram, within 30 days after the receipt of this order, failing which the service will be disconnected dismanted without any further notice and steps will be taken to realise the amount due from him.
12. It is no doubt true that the appellate Court recorded Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 but however Article 137 of the Limitation Act is the residuary Article dealing with Applications. Hence, the same is not applicable. Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is the relevant Article which is applicable. Article 113 reads as hereunder:
"Any suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this Schedule", the period of limitation is three years. The period begins to run from when the right to sue accrues.
The cause of action to institute a suit would arise after the expiry of the period specified in Ex.A.11. It is needless to say that the said period would come to an end only after lapse of 30 days which had been specified in the order made by the Appellate Authority under Ex.A.11. Both the Courts had taken this aspect into consideration and arrived at a conclusion that the suit is perfectly within limitation and ultimately decreed the suit. In the light of the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below and also in the light of the contents of Ex.A.11 and in view of Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, this Court is of the considered opinion that the suit is perfectly within the period of limitation and hence the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and the decree made by the said Court which had been, in fact, confirmed by the Appellate Court do not suffer from any illegality, whatsoever.
13. Accordingly, the Second Appeal shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.