ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICITY Vs. SUBHASH CHUNILAL RATHOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this second appeal the suit based on complaint against the electricity Board must fail and to be held as not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 5 of the Karnataka Electricity board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1976, which is extracted below:

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the plaintiff has not deposited the protest amount into Court before filing the plaint. The fact that no amount has been deposited is not only admitted by the plaintiff but also seen by the Courts below. But, yet they have not applied the provisions of law correctly and consequently the approach of the Courts below is wrong. The visa to the plaintiff to enter the court with the plaint is under Section 5. Once Section 5 does not permit the visa to the plaintiff, he cannot enter the Court at all. Therefore, on this ground also the second appeal is allowed and the finding of the Courts below have to be set aside. However, in case, the plaintiff feels that he was led to believe that the defence taken by the Electricity Board will come to his aid and therefore he was under bona fide impression tkat he need not deposit the money into Court.

(3.) AS the second appeal is disposed of on a very technical ground, I am giving the plaintiff an opportunity to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action after depositing the protest amount under Section 5 with the Electricity Board. It is made clear that the money is to be deposited with the Electricity board.