The burden of proof for theft of energy lies with the Electricity Company, and cogent evidence is required to establish theft. Due procedure must be followed in issuing supplementary bills.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 30.04.1996 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Gondal, District : Rajkot in Special Civil Suit No.128 of 1993. The present respondent was the original plaintiff before the Trial Court. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

It is noted that the present appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 17.04.2017, which was thereafter restored to its original file by this Court vide order dated 06.03.2020.

2. The short facts of the case are as under :

2.1 The appellant is the original defendant and respondent is the original plaintiff before the Trial Court. The plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendant/s for declaration and permanent injunction.

2.2 The plaintiff is a consumer of defendants having consumer No.33201/0033 /7 Ind. No.0088 and his industry is situated at Jetpur.

2.3 On 15.7.1993, an officer of the defendants had come with electric meter at plaintiff's factory and removed electric meter, without prior notice to the plaintiff, though the plaintiff had neither tempered with the electric meter nor with the seals on it nor abstracted electricity, dishonestly, and thereby tried to lower down the goodwill and prestige of the plaintiff.

2.4 At the time of removing meter, officer of the defendants did not prepare any papers on the spot.

2.5 On the next day i.e. on 16.7.1993, the officer of the defendants had come at plaintiff's factory and gave Special Bill of Rs.2,36,619.12 Ps. dated 16.7.1993 for alleged power theft.

2.6 Therefore, the plaintiff has filed a suit before the trial Court for declaration and permanent injunction and prayed relief to declare that the impugned Special Bill of Rs.236619.12 Ps. dated 16.7.1993 be declared as illegal and not recoverable and further sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disconnecting plaintiff's connection. Also, the plaintiff sought relief to further declare that the action of defendants in disconnecting plaintiff’s connection was illegal and without authority.

2.7 The defendants have filed their written statement at Exh.12 before the trial Court and denied the averments made in the plaint by the plaintiff. Further, the defendants had stated that the plaintiff has tempered with the meter and seal, the meter was changed and the signature of the representative of the plaintiff was taken on the Rojkam and other papers. The defendants have submitted that the suit may be dismissed.

2.8 The trial Court, after hearing the submissions of the rival parties, framed the issues at Exh.20, which can be seen from para : 4 of the impugned judgment and answered them in para : 5.

2.9 The parties to the suit have relied on oral as well as documentary evidence.

2.10 Oral evidence relied upon by the plaintiff consists of PW1 - Ajay Navarlal Doshi at Exh.30 and PW2 - Rajendra Natvarlal Doshi at Exh.56. Oral evidence, relied upon by defendant consists of DW1 - Bharatkumar Naranbhai and DW2 - Gohel Girdharial Mohanlal at Ex.61.

2.11 The trial Court has heard the arguments and allowed the suit. Hence, the present First Appeal is preferred by the original defendant/s - Electricity Company before this Court.

3. Heard Mr. Viral J. Dave, learned advocate for the appellant – original defendant - Electricity Company. The respondent – original plaintiff is not appearing and contesting the appeal, though served.

3.1 Mr.Viral J. Dave, learned advocate for the appellant – original defendant has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree is passed without taking into consideration the evidence led by the appellant - Electricity Company. He has submitted that the trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit as prayed for by the defendants and ought to have held that the defendants – Electricity Company is entitled to recover the amount of supplementary bill from the Plaintiff.

3.2 He has submitted that the trial Court ought to have accepted the evidence and more p