Point of Law: While granting the decree in favour of the plaintiff – Company has granted permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff - Company which is permanent in nature, affecting the future rights of the Board to the extent that in case of theft of electricity, in future, by the company, Board may not be able to take necessary action which may include issuance of supplementary bill and disconnection of electricity. This needs to be modified to the extent that only for non-payment of disputed supplementary bill, there would not be disconnection of electricity with necessary clarification.

JUDGMENT :

1. These appeals are preferred under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against the common judgment and decree passed by the concerned Trial Court.

2. Since both the suits i.e. Special Civil Suit No.204 of 1994 and Special Civil Suit No.232 of 1997 are disposed of by the common judgment by the Trial Court, these appeals are heard together and the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Brief facts of First Appeal No.6356 of 1999 :-

3.1 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 07.05.1999 passed by the learned 4th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bharuch in Special Civil Suit No.204 of 1994, whereby the Trial Court has directed the appellants to pay Rs.4,05,905.60 paise (Rupees Four Lakh Five Thousand Nine Hundred Five and Sixty paise only) with running interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of suit till its realization the appellants have preferred the present appeal. It is contended by the appellants that it is a statutory Board established under the Electricity Act. It is contended that respondent’s i.e. original plaintiff’s meter was checked on 07.12.1992 and after following necessary formalities, the said meter was taken for testing and another meter was placed. It is also contended that on 22.12.1992, supply of the electricity was disconnected since the respondent was found committing theft of electricity and the supplementary bill was issued to the respondent for Rs.6,81,801/- (Rupees Six Lakh Eighty One Thousand Eight Hundred one Only). Challenging the said bill, the respondent has filed the aforesaid Special Civil Suit which came to be allowed by the impugned judgment and decree.

3.2 The appellants have challenged the aforesaid judgment and decree on the grounds that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the entire proceedings of sealing of the meter, checking, preparing Rojkam, testing were carried out by the Officers of the appellants in their regular course and the same was done in the manner as the same was required to be done. It is also contended that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the plaintiff failed to prove that there was any irregularity the aforesaid proceedings. It is contended that simply because the respondent does not understand Gujarati language would not vitiate the Rojkam in the proceedings of the appellants herein. It is also contended that the respondent has first time raised this dispute when he has approached the Trial Court and that too, at the time of filing of the suit. It is further contended that the bill was issued to the respondent as per the tariffs and in accordance with the rules by calculating the average bill and the respondent failed to prove that it was not in accordance with the law. It is also contended that the Trial Court has also failed to appreciate the fact that the oral evidence of Mr.Roongta that he did not understand the contents of the documents would not vitiate the documents or the genuineness of the documents and the same cannot be doubted on the grounds that executant has no knowledge of the content thereof as it was in Gujarati language. It is also contended that when there was documentary evidence, then, there cannot be oral evidence to exclude the documentary evidence. According to the appellants, the entire Chapter VI of the Evidence Act has been given go-bye in the present case while appreciating the entire evidence. It is further contended that the Trial Court ought not to have gone into the matter of correction of the bill, especially, when the respondent has failed to prove that the bill is not in accordance with the law. On all these grounds, the appellants have prayed to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.05.1999 passed by the learned 4th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bharuch in Special Civil Suit No.204 of 1994.

4. Brief facts of First Appeal No.6358 of 1999:-

4.1 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and decree dated 07.05.19