MINAKSHI THAPAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 122 days occurred in re-filing of the appeal is condoned. Main Case

(2.) UNION of India, Ministry of Telecom, through its General Manager, Telecom, Patiala instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 47,835/-. It was pleaded in the suit that a telephone bearing No. 214375 (PCO) was provided at the premises of the defendant and the same was utilized by her. Various bills were raised by the plaintiff-Department between 6th February, 1997 to 21 st June, 1997 and an amount of Rs. 47,835/- became due and was outstanding in the account of the defendant. Defendant had failed to make the payment of outstanding bills, hence, the suit was filed.

(3.) IN the present case, the trial court had dismissed the suit on the ground that PW 1 K.N. Prashar, Junior Accounts Officers, BSNL, Patiala had stated that the defendant was not personally known to him and he had not visited the premises where the alleged connection was installed. Furthermore, he had also stated that the telephone connection was not installed in the demised premises in his presence. It was stated by the trial court that since a definite stand was taken by the defendant that telephone No. 214375 was not installed at her premises and she had not applied for the same, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove by leading evidence that defendant had got the telephone installed and had availed the facility.