TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. K SUBBANNA ODAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 26.11.1991, made in A.S.No,56 of 1991, on the file of the Sub Court, Gopichettipalayam, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 29.3.1991, made in O.S.No,538 of 1987, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case, as stated by the appellant, are as follows: THE sanctioned load for the service connection No,395, for Sri Karthikeya Mills, run by the respondent/plaintiff, was 129 H.P. + 2.4 K.W. On 7.7.1986, the Anti Power THEft Squad had made a surprise inspection and it had found that the respondent/plaintiff had connected the machines of the Mills, for a total load of 153 H.P. + 16.4 K.W. As such, there was an unauthorised additional load of 24 H.P. connected to the machines. THErefore, the appellant Electricity Board had issued a letter, dated 14.7.1986, informing the respondent/plaintiff that the service connection would be disconnected from 22.7.1986. Against the said notice the respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit, in O.S.No,530 of 1987, for a declaration to declare that the respondent/plaintiff had not used unauthorised additional load. THE suit which was originally numbered as O.S.No,597 of 1986, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam, had been transferred to the District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam, and it was re-numbered as O.S.No,530 of 1987.

(3.) BOTH the above mentioned suits had been tried together and the trial Court, after considering the contentions raised on behalf of the plaintiff, as well as the defendant in the said suits, had found that one Mayilsamy, the Supervisor of Sri Karthikeya Mills, who was present at the time of the inspection by the Anti Power Theft Squad, on 7.7.1986, had given a letter on behalf of the Mills that certain machines had been connected with electricity at the time of the inspection. It had also been admitted that the total load connected at the time of the inspection was 153 H.P. and 16.4 K.W. The said letter had been marked as Ex.B-4. The trial Court had held that, since Mayilsamy, who was P.W.1, had accepted his signature on the letter, the onus was upon the respondent to prove that it was obtained under threat. The trial Court had also held that the suits had been filed, prematurely. The suit, in O.S.No,538 of 1987, had been filed against the initial assessment notice, dated 19.7.1986, and the suit, in O.S.No,530 of 1987, had been filed only for a declaration. Since the respondent had not exhausted the appeal remedies available under the terms and conditions of the supply of electricity, before filing the suits, the said suits had been dismissed by the trial Court, by a common judgment and decree, dated 29.3.1991.