[2025:RJ-JP:29077] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 41/2015 1. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur. 2. Executive Engineer, Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Dholpur. 3. Assistant Engineer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Basedi. 4. Junior Engineer, Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Sarmathura. ----Appellants Versus Parshottam S/o Vishambhar, R/o Sarmathura, Tehsil Basedi, Dis- trict Dholpur. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Ms. Muskan for Ms. Anuradha Upadhayay For Respondent(s) : None HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 31/07/2025 This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants-de- fendants (for short 'the defendants') against the judgment and de- cree dated 21.10.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Badi (for short 'the first appellate Court') in civil appeal No. 14/2013, by which the first appellate Court while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff'), directed the defendants not to recover the amount of Rs.20,210/- from the plaintiff and not to discontinue the electricity connection of the plaintiff on the basis of amount in question, set aside the judg- ment and decree dated 16.03.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Badi, Dholpur (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. [2025:RJ-JP:29077] (2 of 4) [CSA-41/2015] 12/2005 by which the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for mandatory and permanent injunction. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants men- tioning therein that he had obtained a 25-HP electricity connection from the defendants in the town of Saramthura, having account number 0058. The plaintiff’s meter was neither damaged nor re- mained unfunctional and the defendants never got it checked in the laboratory. The seal of the meter was intact. He never commit- ted any kind of electricity theft and was paying the amount of the electricity bills regularly based on the meter readings. No amount was due prior to January 2002. From January 2002 to November 2004 the plaintiff did not owe a single penny towards consumption charges. However, in the bill for the month of January 2005, an additional amount of Rs.20,210/- was added to the consumption charges, which is incorrect. On account of non deposition of the aforesaid charges of Rs.20,210/-, the defendants want to discon- nect the electricity connection, whereas on 27.01.2005, the plain- tiff deposited the billing amount of Rs.7,609/- towards the con- sumption charges. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be decreed. The defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that a bill of Rs.20,210/- was correctly sent to the plaintiff. The meter of the plaintiff was not functional and replaced twice. After taking the average reading of the new meter and after deducting the amount already de- posited by the plaintiff, bill of Rs. 20,210/- was raised. The action of the defendants was based upon Rule 19 (C) and (D) of the Gen- [2025:RJ-JP:29077] (3 of 4) [CSA-41/2015] eral Conditions of Supply Rules 1964 (for short ‘the Rules of 1964’). Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1- vk;k ekg tuojh 2005 ds fo|qr fcy esa izfroknhx.k }kjk miHkksx jkf’k ds vykok 20210 :i;k yxkdj Hksts gS tks drbZ xyr gSA ftUgsa izfroknh oknh ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS\ 2- vk;k oknh izfroknhx.k ds f[kykQ LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- vk;k oknh dk ehVj can gksus ds dkj.k izfroknh ij vkWfMV ikVhZ }kjk 20210 :i;s dk vfrfjDr pktZ yxk;k gS ftls oknh ls izfroknhx.k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ 4- vk;k oknh }kjk ehVj dks [kjkc fd;k x;kA ;fn ,slk gS rks bldk D;k izHkko gS\ 5- vuqrks"k\” To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 Puroshottam. The defendant also got examined DW-1 Pyare Lal, DW-2 Brij Lal Chouhan, DW-3 Sitaram Sharma and DW-4 Shiv Singh. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.03.2011, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff challenged the said judgment and decree dated 16.03.2011 passed by the trial Court by filing an appeal and the first appellate Court vide judgment dated 21.10.2014 allowed the appeal filed by the defendants and directed the defendants not to recover the amount of Rs. 20,210/- from the plaintiff and not to discontinue the electricity connection of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the first ap- pellate court has committed an error in not appreciating the evi- [2025:RJ-JP:29077] (4 of 4) [CSA-41/2015] dence led by the parties in the right perspective. The finding of the first appellate court is based on surmises and conjectures. The meter of the plaintiff was not functional and replaced twice. So, after taking the average reading of the new meter, bill was sent to the plaintiff. So, the judgment passed by the first appellate court is required to be set aside and the present second appeal be ad- mitted on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. Despite service of notice, none is present on behalf of the plaintiff. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants and perused the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.10.2014 passed by the first appellate court. It is an admitted position that the defendants issued the av- erage amount bill of three months immediately preceding the date when the meter was not functional, whereas as per Rule 19 (C) of the Rules of 1964, envisions that average billing amount of four months immediately after installation of the functional meter ought to have been issued. In this view of the matter, the demand so raised by the defendants was legally not sustainable and thus I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the fist appellate Court. So, no ground is made out to admit the appeal on the sub- stantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. There- fore, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dis- missed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/26