SHIV INDUSTRIES Vs. TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 22.3.2014 passed by Sh. Pankaj Gupta, the learned Additional District Judge in R.C.A. No. 59/2013 by virtue of which the judgment and the decree dated 13.8.2013 passed by Ms. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani, the learned Civil Judge was upheld.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the present appellant, M/s. Shiv Industries, a proprietary concern had filed a suit through its sole proprietor Vinod Kumar Gupta for permanent and mandatory injunction. The prayer in the suit was that the respondent, that is, North Delhi Power Limited be restrained from raising and realizing the amount of theft bill in respect of electricity connection No.K -002 -1267367 -IP and 002 -1267376 -IL installed at premises No.A -9, Group Industrial Area, Wazirpur, Delhi -52. It may be pertinent here to mention that in the year 1998, an inspection of the premises was conducted and it was found that he was indulging in fraudulent abstraction of electricity. The main ground on the basis of which the restraint order was sought, is that these are stale claims.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and the trial court dismissed the suit of the appellant solely on the ground that the present appellant, in support of its case, had examined only one witness Ram Kumar Gupta in the capacity of an attorney while as Vinod Kumar Gupta, the proprietor, had not entered into the witness box at all. The learned trial judge dismissed the suit holding that the attorney could testify only with regard to filing of the suit and not with regard to the matters in respect of which he had no personal knowledge. So far as the report of inspection, which was conducted in the year 1998 is concerned, it was observed that as he was not a signatory to the inspection report, therefore, he would not be deemed to have the knowledge about the inspection when the fraudulent abstraction of electricity was found. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed.