SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the plaintiff directed against the order dated 24-7-1989, passed by the 16th Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore on Preliminary Issue No. 3 in O. S. No. 4716/86, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff as not maintainable.

( 2 ) THE parties during the course of this judgment will be referred to by the rankings assigned to them in the trial Court.

( 3 ) THE brief facts leading to this appeal are: the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants seeking permanent injunction restraining them from disconnecting the electric power connection to R. R. ACP 563 installed in the premises No. 68, Lalbagh Road, Bangalore and restraining them from causing obstruction to the plaintiff in his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the power through the said meter. The defendants filed the written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiff on various grounds including the ground that the suit itself as filed was not maintainable. The trial Court in view of the pleadings of the parties framed 5 issues on 12-7-1989. Among them issue No. 3 was set down for hearing as a preliminary issue. The said issue No. 3 reads: whether defendants prove that the suit as brought is not maintainable? the Court below having heard the learned counsel for the parties recorded finding on issue No. 3 in the affirmative holding that the suit was not maintainable. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the order dated 24-7-1989. The plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the said order and decree passed thereto has filed this appeal.

( 4 ) SRI Shekar Shetty, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant urged that the plaintiff had only prayed for a judgment and decree against the defendants restraining them from disconnecting the electric power connection in RR. . ACP 563 to the premises No. 68, Lalbagh Road, Bangalore-27 or from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the power through the said meter. The plaintiff filed the suit in view of the letter dated 29-9-1986 addressed to him by the Assistant Executive Engineer (Elecl.) defendant No. 2. The said letter reads thus:"with reference to the above, I write to state that the Ledger Accounts of your electric installation bearing R. R. No. ACP-563, has been audited by our Internal Audit authorities and pointed out a short claim of Rs. 2,18,057-33 p. , on account of omission of application of Meter Constant applicable to the consumption recorded in the Meter fixed to your installation. As such you are hereby requested to pay the Audit Short Claim of Rs. 2,18,057-33 p. within one month from the date of receipt of this letter, failing which the power supply to your installation is liable for disconnection. This may be noted. Detailed statement showing the calculation of Audit Short Claim containing seven sheets is herewith enclosed for your ready reference". The learned counsel contended that the defendants have no power to disconnect power supply or to interfere with the enjoyment of the power supply based on the aforementioned letter. The defendants cannot trace their right to do so either under S. 69 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (for short the Act 1948) or under Regulations 35 and 41 (e) of the Electricity Supply Regulations (for short the Regulations ). He went on to argue that under Karnataka Act No. 51/76 (the Karnataka Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1976) the defendants cannot recover the so called dues in the absence of any certificate issued by the prescribed authority. Even otherwise, at best, dues if any under the said Act could be recovered as land revenue, but the defendants cannot disconnect the power supply. He submitted that regulation 35 applies to only regular monthly bills, which the plaintiff has paid regularly. The disputed claim is not included in any bill. The plaintiff has also not committed any theft of energy. The audit short claim on account of omission of application of Meter Constant applicable to the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document