GUJARAT VIDHYUT BOARD Vs. PATEL SENDHABHAI AMBALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present second appeal ha been preferred by the appellants-original defendants-Gujarat Vidhyut Board under sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure posing the following substantial question of law: "Whether the judgments and decrees of the courts below suffer from the vice of misinterpretation and misapplication of Section 26(6) of the Electricity Supply Act?"

(2.) THE facts of the case, briefly summarised, are that Regular Civil Suit No 77/85 came to be filed by the plaintiff-consumer before the Civil Judge (J.D.), Gandhinagar with regard to the notice and the bill dated 31.5.1985 raised demanding an amount of Rs. 3,451.40. On appreciation of evidence and after hearing the parties, the suit was allowed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Gandhinagar declaring that the demand for the additional bill for Rs. 3,541.40 is unauthorised and illegal and restraining the appellants-original defendants from disconnecting the supply. THE appellants-original defendants challenged the said order by way of Regular Civil Appeal No. 1/97 before the Court of learned Asst. Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Gandhinagar. After considering the material and evidence and after hearing the learned advocates for the parties, the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal vide the judgment and order dated 29.11.1997. It is this judgment and order which has been assailed in the present second appeal posing the substantial question of law as stated above.

(3.) THEREFORE, considering the limited scope of exercise of discretion under sec. 100 of CPC in the second appeal, the court is not inclined to entertain the present second appeal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judicial pronouncements has laid down that the High Court should not disturb the concurrent findings of facts and unless any substantial question of law is involved the discretion should not be exercised.