1. - This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.7.1988 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rajasmand in Civil Original Suit No. 2/86.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent filed one suit for declaration, injunction and refund of Rs. 94695.15. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff-respondent is a public limited company, engaged in manufacturing of the marble tiles etc. The plaintiff-respondent applied for electric connection from the appellant-defendant. The appellant-defendant sanctioned the electric connection of the plaintiff-respondent and for which a latter was issued on 7.7.83 by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short 'the BSEB') which contained a condition that the plaintiff will deposit Rs. 2,86,654 with the defendant-RSEB which shall be adjustable amount against the consumption charges. The plaintiff deposited the above amount for which a receipt was issued by the RSEB vide Receipt No. 69, Book No. 8968 dated 5.8.83 and, thereafter, the electric connection was issued in favour of the plaintiff. The RSEB started issuing bills to the plaintiff-respondent Company for their electricity consumption. According to the plaintiff, the bills which were issued by the RSEB were required to be adjusted with the amount already deposited with the RSEB by the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiff was not liable to make payment of the bills issued by the RSEB.

3. Faced with threat of disconnection, the plaintiff filed a suit for injunction before the court of Munsif, Rajsamand wherein an order of injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the RSEB, that the electricity connection of the plaintiff shall not be disconnected in view of the already deposited amount of Rs. 2,86,654. Therefore, the plaintiff started depositing the excess amount of Rs. 2,86,654/- which was demanded by the RSEB.

4. In view of the above facts, the plaintiff alleged that since plaintiff's money was lying with the defendant and, therefore, plaintiff is not defaulter in payment of charges of electricity consumption and, therefore, the plaintiff is not liable to make any payment which the defendant RSEB is demanding on the ground of late payment surcharges. Despite no liability, the plaintiff was forced to make payment of Rs. 94,695.15 against the late payment surcharge to the defendant. The plaintiff submitted a detailed chart of the recovered amount as Schedule-K along with the plaint. The plaintiff since had to make payment of late payment surcharges under threat of disconnection and, therefore, the plaintiff after making payment filed the present suit for recovery of amount of Rs. 95,695.15 with the relief of declaration that it may be declared that in spite of deposit of Rs. 2,86,654, any amount shown by the RSEB in the head of non-payment surcharges may be declared illegal and it was further sought that the amount of Rs. 94,695.15 deposited by the plaintiff against the above non-payment surcharges category may be adjusted in future bills which will be issued by the RSEB to the plaintiff and it is further sought relief of injunction that till the above amount is not adjusted, no late surcharges be levied against the plaintiff and the interest be awarded against the wrongfully recovered amount.

5. The defendant in its written statement admitted that Rs. 2,86,654/- was deposited by the plaintiff as advance, to be adjusted against the future electricity consumption bills. According to the defendant-RSEB, though the amount was deposited by the plaintiff and it was to be adjusted towards future electricity bills, even then the plaintiff was required to make payment of the electricity bills month-wise. It was further specifically admitted that the amount was adjustable. The defendant further submitted that the defendant is working in the interest of public and when the defendant's financial position was weak, therefore, because of this reason, the above advance money was demanded from the