A.P.S.E.B. Vs. YARLAGADDA NARAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON question does arise in these two appeals which arise out of two suits filed by the Electricity Board for the recovery of unconnected minimum charges and later by amendment, for recovery of the actual amount spent by the Board for purpose of laying lines to the defendants herein. The said suits in the first instance were dismissed on the ground that the defendants are not liable to pay the amount sought for as there was frustration of contract within the meaning of Sec. 56 of the Contract Act. Against that at the appellate stage, an amendment of the plaint was sought for to the effect that the plaintiff may be allowed to seek for an alternative relief of recovering the actual amount spent on connecting the lines to the defendant premises, which was allowed, but the appellate court, however, confirmed the decision of the trial court in so far as the frustration of the contract was concerned but remanded the matter back to the trial court in regard to the amended plea. On remand, however, once again the plea of frustration was gone into, but was held against the plaintiff. So also in regard to the amendment relief it stood dismissed. On appeal however, the appellate court though held that the trial court on remand, ought not to have adjudicated on that aspect, nevertheless the appellate court went into that aspect and held once again, against the plaintiff. In so far as the second aspect is concerned, the appellate court confirmed the trial court's judgment and decree. Hence these second appeals. The propositions that were raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are:

(2.) IN regard to the first one the position is now fairly covered by two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Jasraj vs. Hemraj : AIR 1977 S.C. 1011; and Sita Ram vs. Sukinandi : AIR 1972 SC 1612. It has been held in the latter case which is more direct on the point as under: -

(3.) THE provisions enacted in Section 105 C.P.C. may be set out: