C LINGAMMA Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant. The respondent A.P. State Electricity Board laid the suit to recover a sum of Rs. 25,258-22ps. consisting of Rs. 1,273-50ps. towards minimum consumption charges, Rs. 22,739-40ps. towards damages for pilferage of electrical energy and Rs. 1,215-32ps. towards surcharge. The case of the respondent-Board is that on December 15, 1974 PW-2, the Divisional Electrical Engineer inspected the eleclrtcal service of the appellant and found it to have been tampered with. As a result, he made a provisional assessment and after issue of notice, passed a final assessment order under Ex. A-4, dated January 21, 1975 imposing a sum of Rs. 26,194/- as the amount towards pilferage. On appeal, that order was confirmed under Ex. A-6, dated July 23, 1976 for a sum of Rs. 22, 579-40ps. But the amount had not been paid by the appellant. Accordingly, for its recovery with the minimum charges and surcharge for the period from March, 1975 to December, 1975, the suit was tiled for recovery. The defence of the appellant is two-fold : firstly that the assessment for the recovery of the alleged pilferage charges is arbitrary ; and secondly, that the minimum charges bills have not been served on him and he is not liable to pay the minimum charges and surcharge. Finally, it was pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation. The trial court framed three issues and found that the appellant is liable to pay the suit amount and the suit is within limitation. Accordingly, it decreed the suit.

(2.) Sri Veerabhadrayya, the learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously reiterated all the contentions raised before the court below.

(3.) The first question, therefore, is whether the suit is within limitation,