BHAGVANJI SANKLESHVAR DAVE Vs. AHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff against the Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. for the supply of electricity to premises situated in another street in substitution of the supply which the plaintiff used to have in respect of premises situated near Dhinkwa Chowkey. So far as the supply of electricity to 1 he premises near Dhinkwa Chowkey was concerned, it was properly obtained by the plaintiff on a requisition contemplated by the Indian Electricity Act IX of 1910. It appears, however, that the plaintiff in accordance with the somewhat loose practice, which used to prevail before the year 1920, asked for the supply of electricity for the new premises without making a requisition in writing as required by Clause VI paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Schedule to the Act. There was some correspondence after he asked for this supply. The company apparently did not insist upon any requisition as required by the Act, and for some other reason put off supplying electricity to the plaintiff. As a result on August 27, 1920, the plaintiff filed the present suit, in which he prayed for an order directing the defendant company to transfer the connection No. 206 from one house to another house mentioned in the plaint.

(2.) The company pleaded in defence that the suit was not maintainable, among other things, on the ground that no requisition as required by the Act was made. Soon after this plea was taken, it appears that the plaintiff submitted a requisition as required by Clause VI of the Schedule. But the contentions of the parties with reference to this requisition were not made the subject-matter of any issues in the trial Court at the hearing. The suit proceeded on the original cause of action, and the first question that the trial Court applied its mind to was whether the requisition in writing was necessary before the plaintiff could have a new connection in lieu of the old one. The trial Court decided that point against the plaintiff, and dismissed the suit directing each party to bear his own costs.

(3.) The plaintiff appealed from that decree, and in appeal the same position which the plaintiff had taken up in the trial Court was sought to be justified. But the appellate Court was not satisfied as to the correctness of the plaintiff's position, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.