34-SA-141-2022.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 141 OF 2022 Dhananjay Dattatray Naravane and Ors. …Appellants Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board Rasta Peth and Anr. …Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 968 OF 2022 Mr. Mahendra Agvekar a/w. Ms. Shraddha Chavan for the appellants. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 17th JUNE 2026 ORDER : 1. This second appeal is preferred by the original plaintiffs, partially aggrieved by the concurrent judgments and decrees passed in their suit. The suit was filed for a declaration and injunction that the defendants should not charge more amount against the electricity consumption. The suit was partly allowed only to the extent of granting installments in making payments towards the outstanding bills. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that by considering the provision of Section 34 of the Specific Relief 1/3 Swapnil 34-SA-141-2022.docx Act, 1963, the plaintiffs’ prayer for declaration should have been entertained by the civil court. He further submits that the documentary evidence produced on record is not considered as contemplated under Sections 101 to 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He, therefore, submits that the second appeal raises substantial question of law on the point that the plaintiffs were entitled to seek declaration in respect of the exorbitant amount charged by the respondents towards the electricity consumption. 3. I have perused both the judgments. There is no dispute that the plaintiffs have remedy under the Electricity Act, 2003 to seek appropriate reliefs regarding any grievance against the charges towards the electricity consumption. Both courts have considered the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs and recorded the findings that no sufficient material was produced to support the allegations made by the plaintiffs. The first appellate court has also considered the documentary evidence produced on record and refused to grant any declaration and injunction as prayed by the plaintiffs. For want of any evidence, the allegation that bills were issued without any inspection and meter reading is 2/3 34-SA-141-2022.docx disbelieved. Considering the letters at Exhibits 67, 68 and 69 issued by the plaintiffs requesting for installments to pay arrears, both courts have granted partial relief, by permitting installments for payment of outstanding amounts towards bills. Considering the findings of facts recorded by both the courts, the impugned judgment would not warrant any interference in this second appeal. The arguments raised by relying upon Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 would not be of any avail in view of the findings of fact recorded by both the courts. Both the courts have rightly refused to exercise the discretion as contemplated under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Despite refusing to grant any declaration, the plaintiffs were granted partial relief of payment of the dues by installments. 4. The second appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. 5. In view of dismissal of the second appeal, interim applications, if any, are disposed of as infructuous. [GAURI GODSE, J.] 3/3