Delhi High Court
North Delhi Power Limited vs Shri Kanwar Pal Singh & Anr. on 19 January, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
I-3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 19.01.2011
+ RSA No.57/2004
NORTH DELHI POWER LIMITED ...........Appellant
Through: Mr.Vikram Nandrajog and
Mr.Sushil Jaswal Sharma,
Advocates.
Versus
SHRI KANWAR PAL SINGH & ANR. ..........Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has impugned the judgment and decree
dated 18.7.2003 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge
dated 17.7.1999 whereby the suit of the plaintiff seeking
permanent injunction to the effect that defendant i.e. Delhi
Electricity Supply Undertakings (DESU) be restrained from
disconnecting the electricity connection of the plaintiff in terms of
the inspection report dated 6.3.1995 was partly decreed in favour
of the plaintiff. The finding of the trial judge had been affirmed in
the impugned judgment.
2. Plaintiff Kanwar Pal Singh and Amrik Singh had filed a suit
for permanent injunction. Plaintiff no.1 was the registered
consumer of K. No.515-173298 IP and K. No.515-17203-9- IP and
K. No.1272047 IP installed at his village. On 06.3.1995 officials of
the defendant conducted an inspection pursuant to which a show
cause notice dated 23.3.1995 was sent to him. On 18.4.1995 the
officials of the department came to the spot to disconnect his
electricity. Contention was that the defendant had not checked the
machines to ascertain the connected load and the load mentioned
in the report is imaginary. The report was prepared in the office
without any site inspection. Suit was accordingly filed.
3. In the written statement, contention was that the property
was inspected on 06.03.1995 and the connected load of 142 HP
against the sanctioned load of 20 HP for IP connection and supply
had been found at the spot. The excess load was illegal. Show
cause notice had thereafter followed.
4. The trial judge had framed three issues. Evidence was led by
the plaintiff. He examined himself as PW-1 and proved the bills
Ex.PW-1/C to Ex.PW-1/E. He had also relied upon the subsequent
inspection report dated 11.10.1996 Ex.PW-1/I to substantiate his
statement that the load was less than 100 KW as also the record of
the earlier consumption pattern Ex.PW-1/J and Ex.PW-1/K. His
contention being that no inspection was carried out at the site.
Testimony of PW-1 was also adverted to. DW1 had admitted that
the inspection report was not given to either the plaintiff or to his
representative.
5. After a detailed examination and scrutiny of the oral evidence
and documentary evidence led by the parties the suit of the
plaintiff was decreed in part.
6. This finding was upheld in the impugned judgment. The
finding returned reads as follows:
" ............. Though it has been stated in the written statement
that representative of the respondent refused to accept and sign
the inspection report but DW-1 while deposing in the witness box
has not whispered a single word to the effect that inspection
report was tendered to the representative of the respondent but
he refused to accept the same. Rather in cross examination DW-1
has stated that inspection report was not handed over to any of
the representatives of the respondent. Relevant portion is
reproduced hereunder for the sake of ready reference:-
"It is correct that copy of the report (inspection) dated
6.3.95 was not handed over to any of the
representative of the plaintiff."
No explanation has been offered as to why the report was not
tendered to the representative of the respondent. This itself
creates a doubt about the manner in which the report was
prepared. Learned Civil Judge has also considered this fact
besides other factors in disbelieving the genuineness of the report.
I do not find any reason to take a different view than what has
been taken by the Ld. Civil Judge on this point. Accordingly I do
not find any material illegality and irregularity in the impugned
judgment and decree and the appeal is dismissed."
6. There is no perversity in this finding. The substantial
questions of law have been formulated in the body of the appeal.
The same have been perused. This court is not a third fact finding
court. Its hands are tied. It can interfere with the findings of fact
only if they are perverse and not on any other count. No such
substantial question of law having arisen, the appeal is dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JANUARY 19, 2011
nandan
