Dismissed

M/S Mahadev Rice Mill v. Divisional Engineer Cseb and Another

Chhattisgarh HC7 Feb 2014SA/444/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a second appeal against a first appellate order dismissing a suit. The court held that the suit was not properly valued for court fee and jurisdiction because the plaintiff sought to avoid a disputed electricity bill without establishing a genuine dispute requiring technical resolution under the Indian Electricity Act.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed with the result that the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court were restored.

M/S Mahadev Rice Mill Vs Divisional… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

|1"JI il:

¶2

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH

AT BILASPUR

SECOND APPEAL N0.

/ 2007 (S.B.)

Plaintiff M/s Mahadev Rice Mill Appellant Through - Its Proprietor Kishanlal Kedia, S/o Laxman Kedia, Aged about 40 years, R/o Main Road, Pendra Road, Tehsil & Dist.

¶7

Bilaspur-(C.G.)

¶8

Versus R^spondents Divisional Engineer Defendants Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Pendra Road, Dist.Bilaspur-(C.G.) <M<^'°^^^-^^^^^^^ Junior Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur-(C.G.

¶9

¶10

^^"" SECOND APPEAL U/S 100 OF THE CIVIL

¶11

¶12

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISG?^RH

¶13

Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶14

Second Appsal No. 444 of 2007

¶15

APPEUANT

¶16

M/s. Mahadev Rice Mill

¶17

Plaintiff

¶18

¶19

RESPONDENTS Divisional Engineer & Defendants another.

¶20

SECOND APPEAX. VSDER SECTION 100 OF THS CCOE OE' CIVII. PROCEDURB, 1908

¶21

Present: Mr. Ashok Soni, counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff.

¶22

Mr. B.P. Gupta, counsel for the

¶23

respondents/deiendants.

¶24

QRAL ORDER

¶25

(Passed on 07.02.20i4)

¶26

(1) Heard on admission. For sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to according to their array in the suit. (2; This is plaintiff's Second Appeal aqainst the judgment and decree dated 10 August, 2007 passed by Additional District Judge, Pendra Roaa., Di; Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 27-A/2006, reversing the judgment & decree dated 09.04.2001 passed by Civil Judge, Class I, Pendra Road in Civil Suit No. 3-A/2000, dismissing the plaintiff' S SU.Lt. (3; Facts necessary for disposal of -this appeal are that: M/s. Mahadeo Rice Mill filed a suit plaintiff

¶27

'^. •^».i

¶28

for declaration and permanent injunction stating inter alia that bill dated 27.1.1997 total amounting to Rs. 65;321/- and the notice dated 12.02.1997 issued by the Respondent.s/Electricitv Board is null and void and sought declaration and permanent injunction.

¶29

(4) The trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit finding, inter alia., that if there is dispute in respect of the correctness of electric meter, it ought to have been resolved as per Section 26(6) of the 'the Indian Electricity Act, 1S10 (for shorfc Act of 1910') and restrained the respondents/Electricity Board to disconnect the electric connection of the appellant firm.

¶30

(5) On first appeal being raised by the plaintiff, the first appellate Court has reversed the finding of -with the trial Court holding that there is no dispute reaard to correctness of the meter and as such the said dispute does not fall under Section 26(6i of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The first Appellate Court further recorded a ,-rindina that the plaintiff seeks to avoid the payment of electric bllT-amounting to Rs.65,331/and he ought to have valued the amount of bill for the of and purpose jurisdiction pay advelorn".'court fee and thus, the judgment & decree is liable to be and is therebv dismissed the suit.

¶31

^s%.

¶32

(6) Mr. Ashok Soni, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that first appellafce Court has fallen in error in reversing the vrell reasoned finding recorded by the trial Court. while dismissing the suit. (7; Per contra, Shri B.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents/Electricity supported the impugned tudqment and decree.

¶33

S8) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records of both the courts below including judgment and decree impugned. (9) The plaintiff has filed a suifc for declaration and permanent injunction and claimed relief of electricitv bill dated 27.1.1997 and 12.02.1997 be declared as illeaal and null and void. The bill dated 27.1.1997 has been filed as Ex.P-1, vmich is a bill of ? 65,331/-. Thus, the plaintiff, in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, seeks to avoid payment of ? 65;331/and the plaintiff is requir< make payment of ad veloram court fee on the said amount for the purpose of fcourt fee and jurisdiction. (10) The Full Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Subhash Chand Jain Vs. Chairman, M.P.

¶34

Electrlcity Board and others has held as under:

¶35

"6. The suits which are mentioned under section 7(iv) of the Act of 1870 are of such nature v/here it is difficult to lav down anv standard of valuation. This means

¶36

200'

¶37

that the valuafcion of the reliefs wi.il have to be made bv fche plainfciff under the entry against which the suit is preferred. Provisions .of Order 7, Rule 11-B of the Civil Procedure Code provides inter alia thafc the plaint shall be rejected where the relief claimed is under-valued and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time rixed by it, fails to do so. Under this provision, Court has to reach a finding of under-valuation, specify the correcfc vaiuation within the time fixed by the Court. Failure to do so wou.id entail rejection of the plaint. Obviously, the Court would undertake this enquiry in the interest of revenue after realizing that the valuation of plaintiff is demonstratively unreasonable and case for interference is made out. Otherwise the plaintiff is free to make his own estimation of the reliefs sought in the plaint and the valuation both for purposes or Court fee and jurisdiction has to be ordinarilv acceDted.

¶38

?11) Thus, in view of the judgment of the full Bench of the MP High Court, the suit is also not properly valued and reauisite court fee has not been oaid. Therefore, the first appellate Court is justified in .Eeversing the finding of the trial. Court and the said finding recorded by first , appellate court is finding of fact based on material available on record ar.d I do not find it either perverse or contrary. to ..reaprd and no question of law much less substantial question of law is .involved in this appeal.

¶39

(12) Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs

¶40

Sd/Sanjay K. Agrawal Judge

M/S Mahadev Rice Mill v. Divisional Engineer Cseb and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mahadev Rice Mill v. Divisional Engineer Cseb and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Savitri Devi Vs Mangal Singh andORS.

Tulsi Ram Vs Sher Singh and Ors.

Jagannath Vs Kurso and Others

Prabhu Das Vs Santosh Kumar and Others

Phul Kunwar and Others Vs Madwari Ram and Others

Bhikari Baag and Anr. Vs Hanuman Prasad Agrawal and Ors.