( 1 ) ). The appellant-plaintiffs have filed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 28-6-1995 passed by the learned City Civil Judge, court No. 22, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 1969 of 1990, whereby the suit filed by the appellants was dismissed.

( 2 ) ). The first appellant is a proprietary concern and the second appellant is its sole proprietor. In the suit filed by the appellants, number of reliefs were prayed. However, to summarise the same in nutshell, the appellants filed the said suit for a declaration that the respondent-defendants are not entitled to disconnect the telephone connections held by the appellant-plaintiffs and for a direction to restore and/or reconnect the telephones of the appellants.

( 3 ) ). It is the case of the appellants that they were subscribers of two telephone connections one at the factory being No. 811585 and another at the residence being no. 39514. Telephone No. 811585 was disconnected with effect from 25-11-1985 for non-payment of the two bills dated 21-9-1985 for an amount of Rs. 125. 00 and dated 21-3-1986 for an amount of Rs. 125. 00. The plaintiffs have further averred that even though these bills were paid, the department did not restore the said phone. The appellants informed the department about the payment of these bills vide their letter dated 20-1-1987. It is the case of the appellants that the said telephone remained dead or out of order and was not restored or reconnected even after the payments were made as mentioned in letter dated 20th January, 1987. According to the appellants, appellant No. 2 was informed on another telephone No. 347398 on 12-2-1990 that the payment of telephone bill in respect of No. 812101 is not made. Appellant No. 2, in reply to the said telephonic query replied that telephone No. 811585 is out of order or in other words was not restored since long and further that the respondents have failed to provide the services and/or to rectify the defect. Since the appellants failed to pay the outstanding bills, the respondents by invoking rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the said rules") on 15-2-1990 disconnected another telephone No. 347398 of the appellants. It is the further case of the appellants that since the respondents have failed to provide services and have not restored their telephone No. 811585 (812101), Rule 443 of the said Rules was not applicable and the action of disconnecting the residential telephone No. 347398 on 15-2-1990 was illegal as there were no outstanding dues in respect of the said telephone inasmuch as the appellants paid up the bill dated 1-1-1990 for Rs. 1,498. 00 which included the rent upto 31-3-1990. Not only that but the appellants have also paid another bill dated 1-3-1990 for Rs. 1,205. 00 covering the rent period upto 31-5-1990. The appellants, therefore, prayed for reconnection of both the telephones stated above.

( 4 ) ). The respondents vide their written statement, Ex. 5, while denying the averments made in the plaint, have inter alia, contended that as the payment of telephone bill dated 2-9-1985 was not made, telephone No. 811585 was disconnected. On receipt of the payment, it was ordered to be restored or reconnected vide letter dated 20th January 1987. However, the reconnection could not be carried out as the premises were closed and, therefore, on personal approach of appellant No. 2, the telephone was ultimately restored with effect from 2-6-1987. According to the respondents, the telephone number was changed from 811585 to 812101 and that the said telephone, after restoration, was operative till 6-2-1989. This telephone was disconnected for non-payment of bills dated 1-11-1988 and 11-12-1988 and inspite of the reminders made, since the dues were not paid, the respondents disconnected another telephone No. 347398 as per Rule 443 of the said Rules.

( 5 ) ). The learned City Civil Judge, as stated above, after appreciating the evidence on record,