JUDGMENT :

B.S. BHANUMATHI, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment, dated 21.06.2011, passed in O.S. No. 228 of 2006 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Tanuku, West Godavari District.

2. Heard Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Haritha, learned counsel representing Sri Metta Chandrasekhar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The pleadings of the parties, in brief, are:

(a) The plaintiff’s rice mill is situated in Penugonda with service connection No. 2889, Category No. 3 contacted load of 60 HP+740 watts. Earlier, the plaintiff filed O.S. No. 116 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, seeking declaration challenging the demand notice issued by the defendant. Consequent upon dismissal of the said suit in O.S. No. 116 of 1997, the defendant again issued notice, dated 26.08.2006 to the plaintiff demanding payment of Rs. 55,120/- + Rs. 3,302/- towards costs in O.S. No. 116 of 1997. The said suit was dismissed giving right to the defendant to collect surcharge at the rate of 0.07 paise per day per Rs. 100/- from 29.09.1997. The plaintiff gave reply, dated 27.09.2006, along with a demand draft bearing No. 206252, drawn on State Bank of India, Tanuku, for Rs. 55,120/- towards the balance amount against the proceedings of Chief Engineer, demanding to pay Rs. 1,11,717/- wherein no surcharge is claimed therein. While the matter stood thus, the defendant issued proceedings to pay late payment charges of Rs. 1,37,303/-. Since there was genuine dispute with regard to the assessment made questioning the correctness and the matter is pending in competent Court, the defendant is not entitled to demand surcharge. The defendant has no right to claim such surcharge.

(b) Hence, the plaintiff brought the suit against the defendant for a declaration that the demand made by the defendant in Lr. No. AAO/ERO/TNK/JAO-III/Mly.Billing/D/No. 2042/06, dated 26.10.2006 is illegal, arbitrary and unenforceable and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from enforcing the demand and taking coercive steps for collecting the amount of Rs. 1,37,303/- in any manner whatsoever including disconnection of the service connection No. 2889, category III(B), Penugonda.

4. The defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contending that the suit is not maintainable under the provisions of the Electricity Act. This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit questioning the assessments etc. The suit is barred under the principle of res-judicata. The Court, after elaborate trial in O.S. No. 116 of 1997, rejected the contention of the plaintiff, and thereby, the defendant is entitled to recover the dues. The present surcharge proceedings are demanded by the department, as per the terms and conditions of supply within the purview of Electricity Supply Act, 2003. The plaintiff is not entitled for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction preventing the department from recovering the dues and in default to disconnect the service connection. The suit is bad for not impleading the Chairman and Managing Director of the company. There is no cause of action to file the suit. There is no prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff. The suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:

(i) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions of Electricity Supply Act, 2003?

(ii) Whether the principles of res-judicata is applied to the present suit?

(iii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

(v) To what relief?

6. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW-1 was examined and exhibits A1 to A4 were marked. The defendant was examine