K. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE only question for consideration in this second appeal is whether the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff the Deputy Cheif accountant, Electricity Revenue Officer, Kovvur, for recovery of current consumption charges and the surcharge thereon, is within time.

( 2 ) THE facts are as follows: The appellant-defendants husband was given electricity supply to his mill Sri Krishna Rice Mill under Industrial Tariff in service No, 139. The electricity supply was disconnected some time in October 1956 but restored in April 1957. The defendant s husband was later being supplied electricity for his ice factory from 1-10-1957. On 12-4-1964 the Assistant engineer of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board made a surprise visit to the ice factory and found electricity was being consumed in the peak-load hours. Thereupon the supply of electricity was disconnected. The defendant then filed a suit O. S. No. 86 of 1966 in the District Munsif Court, Tadepallegudem fora mandatory injunction against the plaintiff for restoration of electricity supply, and the suit was decreed on 8-3-1968, the printed copy of the judgment was filed as Ex. B-1. According to the plaintiff, the defendant s ice factory consumed current to the extent of 26,894 units for the period commencing from 26-9-1957 till 29-2-63 and 9,047 units from 1-3-1963 to 12-4-1964. The defendant paid the current charges at the normal rate whereas she was liable to pay the charges at the peak load rate, as she consumed electricity during peak-load hours. The suit was therefore laid for the amount of arrears of the charges being the difference of the peak-load rate and the normal rate, which was computed at Rs. 2976-22 Ps. and included in the bill for March 1965. In addition, the defendant was liable to pay one percent surcharge on the aforesaid amount which came to Rs. 1,041-60 Ps. In all the defendant was said to be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 4017-82 Ps. The bill for the aforesaid amount was prepared on 25-4-1965 demanding payment within 30 days from the said date. As the defendant failed to pay the said amount, the suit out of which this appeal arises, was filed on 17-3-1968.

( 3 ) THE defendant raised various contentions denying that she or her husband ever used electrical energy in peak-load hours. It was contended that permission was given by the concerned authorities for using electrical energy during peak-load hours. The defendant alleged thatthe calculation with regard tothearrears payable towards the peak-load rate and the normal rate, was not correct. It was further pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation.

( 4 ) THE trial court found that the defendant was using electrical energy during the entire peak-load hours but she was permitted to use it by the plaintiff, and as she had consumed electrical energy during peak load hours, she was liable to pay for the energy consumed and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the suit amount towards the difference in charges between the peak load rate and the normal rate. The trial court also held that Art. 113 of the new Limitation Act applied to the case, that the liability of the defendant to pay the amount arose after the demand was made, that the demand having been made on 7-5-1965, the suit filed on 17-3-1968 i. e. , within three years from aforesaid date, was not barred by limitation, and that section 17 of the Limitation Act was not applicable to the case. On those findings, the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs.

( 5 ) ON appeal by the defendant, the learned Subordinate Judge confirmed the finding of the trial court, that the defendant used electrical energy during peak-load hours. On the question of limitation, the appellate court held that Article 113 of the Limitation Act applied to the suit, that the bill for the arrears was prepared on 25-4 1965 disconnected. The defendant then filed a suit O. S. No. 86 of 1966 in the District Munsif Court, Tadepallegudem for a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document