IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

RSA-1863-1993 (O&M) Reserved on:-15.10.2025 Pronounced on : 27.10.2025 Punjab State Electricity Board and Another ....Appellants VERSUS Madan Lal ....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Ms. Jarnail Kaur Dhaliwal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the respondent.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants– defendants PSEB and another against the respondent–plaintiff Madan Lal, assailing the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff–respondent was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 26.10.1990, which was subsequently affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated

06.05.1993. Brief Facts

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction to the effect that the demand of ₹13,920/– raised by the defendants vide memo dated 02.06.1989 as additional charges is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, and further sought a direction to the defendants to adjust the said amount which was deposited by him under protest.

3. The case set up by the plaintiff was that he had obtained an electric connection of 20 BHP from the defendant–PSEB at Baretta Mandi, and an electric meter was installed in his premises by the Board. The plaintiff regularly paid the electricity bills issued by the defendants. The meter reader of the PSEB used to visit the premises of the plaintiff every month for recording the reading, and defendant no.2 used to issue bills on the basis of such readings. It was further alleged that the meter reader was also duty bound to check the operation of the meter and the condition of its seals at the time of taking readings. The average monthly consumption of the plaintiff was about 1800 units. The Junior Engineer of the defendants also used to inspect the meter. It was further pleaded that the meter installed in the plaintiff’s premises was found to be defective, and accordingly, the plaintiff made a representation to defendant no.2 for its checking. The said meter was checked by the authorised representative of defendant no.2, who issued orders for its change on 19.05.1989, having found all seals intact. The meter in question had been installed in September 1988, and since then had been checked by the meter inspector two or three times. However, on 31.05.1989, certain officers of the PSEB, accompanied by police officials, visited the plaintiff’s premises and suspected tampering with two M&T seals of the meter. Consequently, the meter was removed for testing and the connection was disconnected. The defendants demanded a sum of ₹9,320/– as penalty in addition to other charges. It was also stated by defendant no. 2 that the case would be reviewed after testing of the meter. The plaintiff, having no other option to continue his business, deposited the demanded amount under protest. Thereafter, the defendants issued notice no. 1256 dated 02.06.1989, raising a supplementary demand of ₹13,920/– which, according to the plaintiff, was wholly illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. It was further pleaded that there were four M&T seals on the meter and the body of the meter could not be removed by tampering only two seals, which, in fact, were never tampered with. No notice was issued to the plaintiff for inspection of the meter. Hence, the supplementary demand raised by the defendants was claimed to be arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

4. In the written statement filed by the defendants, it was submitted that the suit was not maintainable and had not been properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. It was further pleaded that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter and that the plaintiff was estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the suit. On merits, it was