Judgment

FAZL ALI, J. - This appeal by special leave against the judgment dated February 14, 1967, of the High Court of Bombay turns upon the interpretation of clause 3 of the agreement Ext. 39 executed between the parties containing the terms and on conditions on which the plaintiff/ appellant was to supply electricity to the defendant the Jalgaon Borough Municipality.

2. What appears to us to have been a short and simple case has been rendered cumbersome and complicated by somewhat complex and involved process of reasoning adopted by the High Court in interpreting the various clauses of the agreement Ext. 39. The plaintiff/appellant s case was based mainly on cl.3 of the agreement but the High Court instead of concentrating its attention on the interpretation of the scope and ambit of this particular clause appears to have entered upon a roving inquiry and a detailed determination of the history of the case, the various clauses of the agreement executed, the licence taken by the appellant, and so on, which, in our opinion, were not at all germane for the decision of the simple issue which arose in this appeal.

3. The facts of the case lie within a very narrow compass. The plaintiff/appellant entered into an agreement to supply electrical energy to the Jalgaon Borough Municipality as far back as 1944. The energy was to be supplied on the basis of the agreement executed between the parties in the year 1944. This agreement expired towards the end of January 1951, and a fresh agreement which is dated May 29, 1951, Ext. 39, which was to commence from February 1, 1951, was executed between the parties. This agreement was to enure for a period of five years. In the present appeal we are concerned with the terms and recitals of this agreement, particularly clause 3 thereof.

4. The plaintiff averred inter alia that under the agreement the defendant was bound to consume electrical energy for 16 hours a day and pay the minimum charges even if no actual consumption was made. This claim was put forward by the plaintiff in December 1953 on the basis of clause 3 of the agreement. Consequent upon its claim the plaintiff sent a number of bills to the defendant which it refused to pay and hence the present suit was instituted on February 27, 1956. Before the Trial Court the defendant Municipality denied the allegations of the plaintiff and averred that under the terms of the agreement the Municipality was not bound to pay to the plaintiff Company any minimum charges even if the electrical energy was not consumed. It was also alleged that even if there was any such clause in the agreement it was void under Section 23 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. A number of other defences were also taken with which we are not concerned.

5. The Trial Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon accepted the defendant s plea and dismissed the suit of the plaintif/appellant. The plaintiff thereupon preferred an appeal to the High Court of Bombay which upheld the decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal negativing the plea put forward by the plaintiff.

6. Counsel for both the parties agreed before us that the fate of the entire case depended upon the interpretation of clause 3 of the agreement Ext. 39 which appears on pp. 275-277 of the printed Paper Book. Mr. F. S. Nariman for the appellant submitted that the interpretation put by the High Court was absolutely wrong, whereas Mr. K. S. Ramamurthi strenuously supported the judgment of the High Court. The High Court on consideration of clauses 2 and 3 of the agreement appears to have lost sight of the essential stipulation contained in clause 3 and found that minimum charges were given only in clause 2 of the agreement and clause 3 could be of no assistance to the appellant. The High Court also considered lot of other circumstances which were not at all relevant for the purpose of construing clause 3,of the agreement. In order to interpret the document, it may be necessary to extract clauses 2 and