THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, DISTRIBUTION AND THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, MADURAI DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. M. VASU DEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this second appeal is to the judgment and decree, dated 28.11.2005 passed in A.S. No. 97 of 2005 by the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 308 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Melur, dated 23.03.2005. The respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No. 308 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Melur, for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, wherein the present appellants have been shown as defendants.

(2.) IT is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is running a Modern Rice Mill as Hulling Agent for Tamil Nadu Government. The defendants Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, supplies electricity to the plaintiff's Rice Mill in Service Connection No. 60 for running machineries (power load) and another service connection for lighting, fan etc. (lighting load). The Government (Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.,) used to periodically give licence to the petitioner's Rice Mill as Hulling Agent and supply bulk quantity of paddy to the plaintiff for hulling. The supply of electricity by the Tamilnadu Electricity Board varied according to season and according to generation of electricity and grid supply. As the Mill is in the rural area, 3 Phase current will be supplied only from 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m. and alternatively for six hours in day time.

(3.) THE trial court, after considering the rival submission made on either side, has dismissed the suit. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the plaintiff as appellant has preferred A.S. No. 97 of 2005 on the file of the first appellate court. The first appellate court, after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available on record, has allowed the appeal and thereby set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in O.S. No. 308 of 2004. Against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court, this second appeal has been preferred at the instance of the defendants as appellants.