( 1 ) HEARD Sri N. Siva Reddy, the Counsel representing appellant and Sri Sreeramulu Reddy, the Counsel representing respondent.

( 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. ll, 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 % 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 plaintiff 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 VVSRIR Narasimha Rao, Junior engineer, D. P. E. , Rajahmundry surprised and checked the defendants service connection and during the check the following incriminating points wens 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 dt. 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 of Rs. 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 howe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document