!"#$!%&'&"()*++, BOGHA SINGH ....Appellant -  PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA ...Respondent  )  ./+ 
-

 
 





  
 




  -

 ++ 01 1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Mansa, whereby the appeal filed by the defendant/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2000, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Mansa, vide which suit for recovery of Rs.19,856/- filed by plaintiff/respondent was decreed, has been dismissed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record. 3. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff/Punjab State Electricity Board had instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.19,856/- against defendant on account of consumption of electricity charges. Same was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 29.04.2000 and a decree for recovery of Rs. 19,856/- was passed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.02.25 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment










































4. The appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Mansa vide judgment and decree dated 22.11.2000. 5. Before proceeding further Section 102 of Code of Civil Procedure is reproduced as under:- 102. No second appeal in certain cases: No second appeal shall lie from any decree, when the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees. 6. A perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that no second appeal lies from any decree, when the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding twenty five thousand rupees. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2016(4) RCR (Civil) 615, Nagarpalika Thakurdwara Vs. Khalil Ahmed has also held that no second appeal would lie from any decree, when the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding Rs.25,000/-. It has been further held that the purpose behind enactment of 102 of CPC is to reduce the quantum of litigation, so that Courts may not have to waste time where the stakes are very meagre and not of much consequence. 7. In this view of the matter, the present Regular Second Appeal is thus not maintainable and same is accordingly ordered to be dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Decree-sheet be drawn accordingly.






















-

 *++,     2($!!3 
    
 !   AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.02.25 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment