Delhi High Court
Shri R D Vidyarthi vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam ... on 24 February, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.466/2001
% 24th February, 2011
SHRI R D VIDYARTHI ...... Appellant
Through: None
VERSUS
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED ...... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This case is on the „Regular Board‟ of this Court since 17.1.2011 and
today it is effective item No.6 on the „Regular Board‟. No one appears for the
parties although it is 3.00 P.M. I have therefore perused the record and am
proceeding to dispose of the appeal.
2. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment and decree
dated 4.4.2001 whereby the suit of the respondent/MTNL for recovery of dues
pertaining to telephone connection No.2249822 was decreed.
3. The trial Court after pleadings were complete framed the following
issues:-
RFA No.466/2001 Page 1 of 3
"1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
2. Whether the suit has not been signed, verified and instituted by a
competent person? OPD
3. Whether the suit is bad for want of legal notice? OPD
4. Whether the pltf. is entitled to the suit amount? OPP
5. Whether the pltf. is entitled to interest, if so at what rate? OPP
6. Relief."
4. On issue No.1, the trial Court has rightly held the suit within limitation
because the suit was filed on 16.7.1996 with respect to recovery of bills raised
w.e.f. 1.1.1993.
5. On issue No.2, trial Court has rightly relied on Order 29 Rule 1 CPC and
held that the suit was properly instituted.
6. Issue No.3 was held in favour of the respondent that legal notice was
duly served before the suit was filed. To this, I may add that there is no provision of
law which requires service of notice before filing a recovery suit.
7. The real issues were issue Nos.4 and 5. On these issues, the trial Court
has referred to the bills being Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/5 and the demand notice
Ex.PW1/7. The trial Court has referred to disputes raised by the
appellant/defendant only for one bill, and has held that the matter was referred to a
committee who found no defect in the bill and which decision was communicated to
the appellant/defendant vide Ex.PW1/D2. The trial Court has also thereafter held
that once the appellant/defendant was availing STD and ISD facilities on his phone
and charges for which are much more than normal charges, he could not contend
that long hours of usage shows that the dues were not payable. Usage time is
always lesser but the charges are higher when STD and ISD calls are made. Trial
Court has also referred to the letter of the appellant/defendant wherein a claim was
made for payment in instalments. So far as the issue of the suit being barred under
Section 7B is concerned, I may note that the trial Court has held that the appellant
RFA No.466/2001 Page 2 of 3
himself did not want to go for arbitration because of the time spent litigation and he
simply wanted the suit to be dismissed without the matter being referred to
arbitration. This has been stated in second para of the internal page 16 of the
judgment.
8. I do not find any illegality or perversity in impugned judgment and
decree. Merely because two views are possible, this Court will not interfere with the
view taken by the trial Court, unless the view taken is wholly illegal and perverse
which causes injustice. I do not find that there is any illegality or perversity in the
impugned judgment or that injustice is caused to the appellant. Once the appellant
was found to have used the STD and ISD facilities in his phone, he was bound to
make payment with respect to the bills issued. The defence of the appellant for
non-payment of the bills being devoid of merits was rightly rejected by the trial
Court.
9. The appeal therefore without merits is dismissed, leaving the parties to
bear their own costs. Trial court record be sent back.
FEBRUARY 24, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
