A suit for recovery of telephone dues is not maintainable if a dispute falling under Section 7b (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act was pending between the parties on the date the suit was filed.

( 1 ) FOLLOWING issue No. 3 was ordered to be treated as a preliminary issue by the order dated November 26, 1996:- "whether this suit is barred by Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ?"

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF filed suit for recovery of Rs. 6,01,828. 00 against the defendants, inter alia, alleging that telephone No. 6830236 was installed at premises No. 1-E/189, Lajpat Nagar, on November 4, 1991 and on account of non-payment of outstanding bills by defendants 1 and 2, subscribers, it was disconnected on May 4, 1993. Rs. 600. 00 under the bill dated April 1, 1992, Rs. 4,61,675. 00 under the bill dated March 6, 1993, Rs. 8. 00 under the bill dated June 1, 1993 and Rs. 18,855. 00 under the bill dated August 1, 1993, totalling Rs. 4,81,138. 00 were outstanding against defendants 1 and 2. Plaintiff issued notice to the defendants on December 30, 1993 for making payment of the outstanding bills and in response thereto after acknowledging the liability. Nagesh Chhadha, defendant No. 3, offered to pay the outstanding amount on behalf of defendants 1 and 2 in instalments of Rs. 50,000. 00 per month by the letter dated January 4, 1993 and a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 was also paid towards the instalment. Plaintiff thereafter issued revised bills for Rs. 4,10,808. 00 and Rs. 17,734. 00 and a bill for Rs. 1,840. 00 towards the cost of instalment and directory charges after adjusting the security deposit etc. Defendants have failed to pay the amounts of these bills. It is further alleged that the defendants filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act read with Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act being Suit No. 74/94 against the plaintiff before the District Judge but by the order dated August 16, 1994 that petition was dismissed in default of appearance.

( 3 ) IN their joint written statement defendants 1 and 2 have taken the preliminary objection that correctness of the bills raised by the plaintiff was assailed by them by making a representation dated March 16, 1993 and the dispute between the parties can only be adjudicated upon by a arbitrator appointed in accordance with the provisions of Section 7b of the Indian Telegraph Act. Present suit is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable. It was on this plea that aforesaid issue No. 3 was framed by the court.

( 4 ) OBVIOUSLY, controversy between the parties centres around the fact if a dispute falling under the purview of Section 7b (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act was pending between the parties on the date the suit was filed. In support of the plea REFERRED TO to above taken in the written statement, my attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the defendants to the representation dated March 16, 1993 and the bills in respect of telephone No. 6830236 of the billing cycle periods January 1, 1991, March 1, 1991, April 1, 1991, June 1, 1991, August 1, 1991, October 1, 1991, December 1, 1991, February 1, 1992, March 18, 1992, April 1, 1992, April 19, 1992, June 1, 1992, August 1, 1992, October 1, 1992, November 9, 1992, February 1, 1993 and April 1, 1993 placed on the file. On the contrary, in support of the case that the defendants acknowledged the liability to pay the outstanding dues of Rs. 5 lakhs and there was no dispute falling under the purview of aforesaid Section 7b (1), my attention was invited by the learned counsel for the plaintiff to the defendant s letter dated January 4, 1994 placed on record in addition to the fact that the defendants filed petition No. 74/94 under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act read with Section 7b of the Indian Telegraph Act before the District Judge, Delhi, but they got the same dismissed in default on August 16, 1994 thereby admitting the liability for payment of the outstanding dues. Reliance was also placed on a decision in The State of U. P. and Another Vs. M/s. Janki Saran Kailash Chandra and Another, AIR 1973 SC 2071.

( 5 ) OMITTING the immaterial portion aforesaid representation dated March 16, 1993, reads