Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana State Electricity Board Etc vs M/S A One Polytecs on 17 October, 2014
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
RSA No.2878 of 1997 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of decision:17.10.2014
1. RSA No.2878 of 1997 (O&M)
Haryana State Electricity Board and others ....Appellants
VERSUS
M/s A One Polytecs .....Respondent
*****
2. RSA No.2879 of 1997 (O&M)
Haryana State Electricity Board and others ....Appellants
VERSUS
M/s A One Polytecs .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Present: Mr. Om Parkash Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.
****
HEMANT GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The defendant is in second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below decreeing the suit for mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent for restoration of the electricity connection No.MS-74, Industrial Area, Bhiwani.
The plaintiff firstly filed a Civil Suit No.44 of 1989 for mandatory injunction for restoration of the electricity connection which was said to be disconnected illegally on 13.01.1989 after the staff of the appellants said to have sealed the meter on 09.01.1989. RSA No.2878 of 1987 arises from the Civil Suit No.44 of 1989. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed another Civil Suit No.151 of 1989 challenging recovery of electricity bill amounting to Rs.28,964.55p GULATI DIWAKER 2014.10.28 16:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA No.2878 of 1997 2 based on the average consumption. RSA No.2879 of 1997 arises out of the said civil suit.
The entire issue is whether the electric meter was disconnected illegally on 13.01.1989. The stand of the appellant- Board is that the electric meter was initially checked by Sh. S.C. Vij, Assistant Executive Engineer along with other staff on 12.07.1988 when the meter was found within permissible limits. On another visit by Sh. I.J. Azad, Assistant Engineer, the consumer was not available and checking of the meter was postponed. Thereafter, at the time of checking on 09.01.1989, the MCB seal provided by M&P staff on their last checking was found fake and duplicate by the checking party. This fact was brought to the notice of Sh. S.K. Singla, representative of the plaintiff, who put his signatures in the checking register. Further checking was carried out on 31.01.1989 in the presence of Sh. Ramji Lal, Station House Officer, Police Station, Civil Lines, Bhiwani and meter cover seals were found tampered having seals No.H65451, H65433 and H65486 with sealer impression No.HSEB AOM-27.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues in Civil Suit No.44 of 1989:-
1. Whether the plaintiff has paid the electricity dues upto the period of filing of the suit and is entitled to supply of electricity?OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff firm is registered with Registration of Firms and Societies, if so its effect? OPD
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD
4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-
joinder of parties?OPD GULATI DIWAKER 2014.10.28 16:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA No.2878 of 1997 3
5. Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his act and conduct?OPD
6. Relief.
The learned trial Court returned a finding that the defendants have failed to prove that the seals affixed on the electricity meter in question at the time of inspection were duplicate. Thus, it was found that there is no reason to disconnect the electricity connection in question.
In the present appeals, learned counsel for the appellant refers to the statement of DW1 Subhash Chander Vij to contend that the seals were fake. Such statement has been examined by learned trial Court. It has been found that the original seals were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short 'FSL'), Hisar for examination and that the report has been received as seals were duplicate. Therefore, the findings recorded are unjustified.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and find no merit in the present appeals. The learned trial Court has rightly recorded a finding that the report of FSL cannot be treated as evidence in the present case as no expert has been examined as the author of the report. The learned trial Court has rightly found that the statement of DW1 Subhash Chander Vij cannot be given much weight as he is not expert in the matter to say that the seal is fake. No witness has been examined form FSL to prove that the seal was fake. The police filed report awaiting report of the FSL. The statement of DW1 Subhash Chander Vij is not of a person who has deposed that the seal was fake as per his own knowledge but his statement is based on the report of GULATI DIWAKER 2014.10.28 16:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA No.2878 of 1997 4 FSL which has not been proved in accordance with law. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant relates to re-appreciation of evidence in the second appeal. Therefore, the opinion of FSL without proving the same in accordance with law could not be made basis to accept the present appeal.
I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration as it could not be pointed out that any evidence has been misread or not taken into consideration.
Consequently, the present both the appeals are dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE OCTOBER 17, 2014 'D. Gulati' GULATI DIWAKER 2014.10.28 16:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document