Back
2007 (1) ALD 357
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
P.S. NARAYANA, J.
Padala Harinatha Reddy - Appellant
versus
A.P. State Electricity Board, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District - Respondent
Advocate appeared : N. Siva Reddy, Counsel for the Appellant; Sriramulu Reddy, Counsel for the Respondent.
Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 137, 113 – Suit Was Filed For Recovery Of Money - Substantial Question Learned Counsel representing appellant would submit that the only substantial question of law which would arise for consideration is "whether the Courts below had arrived at correct conclusion on the question of limitation in the facts and circumstances of the case?" learned Counsel pointed out to the respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the Court of the first instance and also the appellate Court and would contend that if the period from the date of the appellate order to be reckoned with, the same is beyond the period of limitation learned Counsel representing respondent would contend that inasmuch as some further time had been specified, the period to be reckoned with after thirty days, after the making of the order - same is within the period of limitation file of the Principal District and the appellant in A.S. on the file of the Subordinate Judge preferred this appeal Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board - respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit was filed for recovery of., with subsequent interest at annum parties hereinafter would be referred to as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the original suit for the purpose of convenience –Held, Appellant is called upon to pay the above amount, less the amount already paid, if any, in this regard to Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office after the receipt of this order, failing which the service will be disconnected without any further notice and steps will be taken to realise the amount due from him no doubt true that the appellate Court recorded Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 but however Article 137 of the Limitation Act is the residuary Article dealing with Applications same is not applicable. Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is relevant Article which is applicable suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this Schedule", the period of limitation is three years. The period begins to run from when the right to sue accrues cause of action to institute a suit would arise after the expiry of the period specified. It is needless to say that the said period would come to an end only after lapse of 30 days which had been specified in the order made by the Appellate Authority. Both the Courts had taken this aspect into consideration and arrived at a conclusion that the suit is perfectly within limitation and ultimately decreed the suit – Appeal shall stand dismissed
2. This Court on 21-5-1996 made the following order:
"Admit in view of substantial questions of law especially the one relating to limitation."
3. Sri Siva Reddy, the learned Counsel representing appellant would submit that the only substantial question of law which would arise for consideration is "whether the Courts below had arrived at correct conclusion on the question of limitation in the facts and circumstances of the case?" The learned Counsel pointed out to the respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the Court of the first instance and also the appellate Court and would contend that if the period from the date of the appellate order - EX.A.11 to be reckoned with, the same is beyond the period of limitation.
4. On the contrary, the learned Counsel representing respondent would contend that inasmuch as some further time had been specified under Ex.A.11, the period to be reckoned with after thirty days, after the making of the order - EX.A.11 and hence, the same is within the period of limitation.
5. Heard the Counsel and perused the findings recorded by the Court of the first instance and also the appellate Court.
6. The unsuccessful defendant in O.S. No.33/85 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Ramachandrapuram and the appellant in A.S. No.18/93 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ramachandrapuram, had preferred this appeal. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board - respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs.10,747-60 ps., with subsequent interest at 12 1/2% per annum. The parties hereinafter would be referred to as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the original suit for the purpose of convenience.
7. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant is an agriculturist owning lands and had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff Board for agricultural electricity service connection No.17481 of Konkuduru Village and the said agreement was entered into on 21-1-1977 with the plaintiff Board. The contracted and connected load in 10 H.P. and the electricity supply was released. On 6-6-1978 at 14.40 hours P. Sriramarao, Junior Engineer (DPE), Rajahmundry accompanied by M. Raghavendra Rao S.O., Rayavaram, P. Satyanarayana, Lineman, Pandalapaka, P. Venkanna, Helper, Konkuduru and VVSRR Narasimha Rao, Junior Engineer, D.P.E., Rajahmundry surprised and checked the defendants service connection and during the check the following incriminating points were found:
(1) The meter cover 3 seals are found to be counterfeit seals imitating the A.P.S.E.B. Laboratory sealing plier of the impression APSEB MRT R-2.
(2) Supply is not available to check the working condition of the meter.
(3) Consumption allowed to be recorded by the meter is low.
The said observation proves that the defendant pilferred electrical energy by removing the original seals of the meter putting back actually recorded consumption and putting counterfeit seals to the meter cover and thus caused immense loss to the respondent Board. At the time of inspection, Karri Sattireddi, a friend of the defendant and Padala Srinivasa Reddy, the son of the defendant also were present and on information passed on to the Assistant Engineer, Operation, Ramachandrapuram, regarding the inspection, the said Assistant Engineer - P.W.2 disconnected the service connection and issued a provisional order dated 7.7.1978 - Ex.A.4 to the defendant assessing the loss caused to the Board at Rs.9,212-50 ps., in addition to the service charge of Rs.50/- and reconnection charges ofRs.20/- giving option to the defendant to pay half of the said amount + Rs.50/- + Rs.20/- as mentioned above if the defendant wanted reconnection. The said notice was received by the defendant on the same day but however the defendant did not avail the option given by the plain
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
