Dismissed

Dharam Singh v. Hry.St.Electricity Board

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Sept 2010RSA/1250/1985

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A special leave petition against the First Appellate Court judgment reversing a trial decree in favor of a tubewell user challenging an electricity demand was dismissed for want of substantial question of law as the dispute centered on a factual disagreement regarding meter tampering.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. No legal infirmity was found in the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court.

Dharam Singh Vs Hry.St.Electricity Board — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

RSA No. 1250 of 1985

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No. 1250 of 1985 Decided on : 22-09-2010

Dharam Singh

....Appellant

VERSUS

Haryana State Electricity Board and another

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶11

Present:Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the appellant

¶12

None for the respondents

¶13

MAHESH GROVER, J

¶14

The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court dated 9.4.1985.

¶15

The appellant filed a suit alleging that the respondents have erroneously raised a demand of Rs.2104.40P for the electricity consumed by the meter installed to his tubewell. The initial plea that was raised was that the meter was checked in the absence of the appellant and therefore, he was not liable to pay.

¶16

Respondents disputed the averments and justified the demand and it was further pleaded that the meter was checked by the officials of the respondents and it was found that the same was tampered with and appellant was charged on the basis of flat rate for the period from January 1981 to December, 1981.

¶17

RSA No. 1250 of 1985

¶18

¶19

Parties went to trial on the following issues:-

¶20

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for ?OPP

¶21

Whether the impugned charges are legal and justifiable as alleged?OPD

¶22

Relief.

¶23

Trial Court decreed the suit while in appeal the findings were reversed. In the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned judgment is erroneous and contrary to law.

¶24

No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.

¶25

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned judgment, I am of the opinion that no legal infirmity has been pointed out from the impugned judgment. Appellate Court has merely determined the liability and justified the demand of Rs.2104.40P based on the checking of the meter. The fact that whether the meter was checked in the absence of the appellant or not is a question of fact which cannot be determined in regular second appeal and in the absence of any substantial question of law having arisen for the consideration of this Court, the present appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.

¶26

September 22, 2010 rekha

¶27

(Mahesh Grover) Judge

Dharam Singh v. Hry.St.Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharam Singh v. Hry.St.Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalit Khullar Vs Shish Pal

Vijay Kumar Vs Gurcharan Singh Dhamotia & Ors.

Vijay Kumar Vs Gurcharan Singh Dhamotia & Ors.

Haryana Wakf Baord Vs Pritam Kaur and Ors.

Shyam Lal Vs Karan Amol etc.

Jasvinder Singh & Ors. Vs Harphool Singh & Ors.