KARIM BUX Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises from the order dated 9. 10. 1995 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the appeal submitted by the plaintiff petitioner with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) THE plaintiff petitioner instituted a civil suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction in the court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Jaipur City, Jaipur stating therein that the plaintiff had purchased a land measuring 2 bigha 5 biswas with four pucca constructed rooms thereon vide a registered sale deed with electricity connection which was installed at the said residential house till 1982, where earlier a factory was running. In the flood of 1982 the factory premises were demolished and therefore the same stopped functioning and the electricity connection also got disconnected since thereafter. On 13. 8. 1991 the plaintiff applied for new electricity connection. A demand note was issued on 14. 10. 1991 to the plaintiff in which in column 9 it was stated that the outstanding dues against the earlier owner of the property regarding the electricity connection with him will have to be paid by the plaintiff. No amount was specifically mentioned in the column, therefore the plaintiff sent a registered letter on 21. 10. 1991 enquiring about the earlier outstanding amount. THE said letter was unanswered. It has been contended in the plaint that the plaintiff was prepared to abide by all other conditions except the condition No. 9. THE defendant cannot legally recover the outstanding amount from the plaintiff and the amount can be realised from the earlier owner Shri Rajeev Joshi from his movable and immovable property. THEre is no provision under the Indian Electricity Act under which the plaintiff can be compelled to pay such amount. It was also pleaded in the plaint that in absence of electricity connection, plaintiff cannot reside in the said house and it was virtually impossible for the plaintiff to stay as the electricity was the basic necessity. THE plaintiff had by making great efforts been able to procure temporary electricity connection for a period of one month. THE plaintiff applied for its extention but the defendant became annoyed with the plaintiff and did not extend the period. A legal notice was also served on the defendants. On account of this the defendants were threatening to disconnect even the temporary electricity connection and it had become imperative to approach the court. It was therefore prayed that the defendants be directed by issuing mandatory injunction to provide to the plaintiff, electricity connection for the purpose of residence within a period of one week and further be directed by issuing a temporary injunction not to disconnect the present temporary connection till the plaintiff paid the regular electricity expenses. This civil suit was also accompanied by an application for issuance of temporary injunction.

(3.) THE lower appellate court has not properly appreciated that refusing to cond one delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very thre- shold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided o n merits after hearing the parties. Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non deliberate delay.