Gujarat High Court
Aarshibhai Mulubhai Karavadara vs Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited on 10 September, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/403/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/09/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 403 of 2023
==========================================================
AARSHIBHAI MULUBHAI KARAVADARA
Versus
PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 10/09/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. Framing following questions of law, the appellant - original
plaintiff preferred this Second Appeal u/s 100 of the CPC
challenging concurrent findings of facts arrived at by both the
courts below.
"1. Whether after clearing all outstanding of electric
connection by the appellant and restore electric
connection then issue of locus standi would come in
finally adjudication of suit?
2. Whether the appellant have no locus standi even
though he cleared all outstanding of electric connection
by and restore electric connection?"
Heard learned advocate Mr.Maulik Soni for the appellant.
2. In line of his questions of law, learned advocate Mr. Soni
would submit that the learned Courts below have committed
serious error in declining the relief of the plaintiff on the ground
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/403/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/09/2024
undefined
that non locus standi. He would further submit that the plaintiff
has paid the amount to the PGVCL for restoration of electric
connection and therefore, the plaintiff has asked for the relief to
recover the amount by amending the plaint Exh.22. But, the
learned Courts below after permitting amendment in the plaint,
wrongly believed that the plaintiff has no locus standi to recover
the amount and therefore, the judgment and decree passed by
the learned Courts below are erroneous. Upon such submission,
he prays to admit and allow this Second Appeal.
3. At this stage, I may refer the issues framed by the learned
trial Court at Exh.21, which reads as under (translated to
English from vernacular language):-
"1 - Whether the Plaintiff proves that it was orally
informed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff that the
amount of total - 3 electric connections are due and the
Plaintiff have paid the amount on 24/07/2010 and have
canceled the electric connection ?
2 -Whether the Plaintiff proves that the Defendant could
not deny to give the electric connection against the
previous due amount of electric bill ?
2-A - Whether the Plaintiff proves that he is eligible to
get interest on the aforesaid amount from the date of
deposit of the same ?
If yes, then how much and from when ?
3 -Whether the Defendant proves that the Defendant
Company never gives oral reply to the applicant who is
demanding Electric Meter and the Company does its
entire correspondence in written ?
4 -Whether the Defendant proves that the present
Plaintiff - the old owner have done a malafide act in
collusion with the possession holder and tried to sink
(evade from paying) the legal debt of the Defendant
Company ?
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/403/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/09/2024
undefined
5. Whether the Plaintiff is eligible to get the relief as
prayed ?
6. What Order and Decree ?"
4. Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in affirmative and issue
No.2A in negative.
5. When the plaintiff has filed the suit, the main issue for
which the declaration and permanent injunction was sought,
was in regards to the restoration of the electric connection.
Relief claimed by the plaintiff after amending the plaint reads as
under:-
"A) It is requested to approve the present case, and
B) It is requested to kindly pass an order in favor of the
Plaintiff stating that according to the application for new
power connection which is filled by the Plaintiff in A-1 form
before the Respondent, the Plaintiff is eligible to get new
power connection at the place of mark 'A' - as indicated, as
well as the Defendant is responsible to give the connection
after receiving the legal amount as per the Rate list which
is paid by the Plaintiff.
C) It is humbly requested to give a Permanent Injunction
Order in favor of the Plaintiff and against Defendant
directing the Defendant to immediately release the (ele.)
connection as demanded by the Plaintiff of this case as on
04/06/2011 by issuing the Rate List and after receiving
the amount .
C-1) The defendant filed an appeal vide C.M.A. no. 63 /
2011 against the order below Exhibit-5 of the District
Court and as stated by the Plaintiff in Exhibit-5 as per
joint pursis of the parties to the appeal, kindly pass an
Order to grant the amount of Rs.7,63,309-82 paisa
(Rupees Seven Lacs, Sixty Three Thousand, Three Hundred
Nine and Eighty Two paise only) which was deposited by
me in the office of the defendant with the interest @ 18%
per annum subject to final disposal of the case."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/403/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/09/2024
undefined
6. The connection of the plaintiff was restored after he paid
the outstanding amount. Before filing of the suit, the suit
property was sold to some third party and throughout the suit
proceedings, the third party did not appear. In these
circumstances, the plaintiff was not entitled for the relief as
prayed for. The main relief, which the plaintiff has sought for in
the suit, was died during the pendency of the suit, as the
plaintiff on his own deposited the amount and get restored the
electric connection. In these circumstances, according to this
Court, the learned Courts below have not committed any error
much less error of understanding of facts and law.
7. In the case of Chandrabhan (Decesaed) through LRs v/s.
Saraswati [2022 (13) Scale 777], three conditions have been
recognized by the Hon'ble Apex Court to disturb finding of facts
viz. The courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on
no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from
proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts
have wrongly cast the burden of proof.
8. In view of above, no substantial question of law is found,
which could permit this Court to entertain the appeal. What
could be considered as substantial question of law has been
elaborately discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Gurbachan Singh (Dead) Through Lrs Versus Gurcharan Singh
(Dead) Through Lrs And Others reported in 2023 (0) INSC 639.
The relevant para is para 7, which reads as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/403/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/09/2024
undefined
"7. The parameters of an appeal under Section 100,
CPC passing muster are well established. The section
itself dictates that such an appeal shall only be
maintainable when the case involves a substantial
question of law or that the appellate decree has been
passed ex parte. the latter, obviously is not the case.
This court has, in a multitude of decisions, expounded
on what may be termed as a substantial question of
law to satisfy the requirements of section 100. In Nazir
Mohamed v. J. Kamala, (2020) 19 SCC 57 ( 2- Judge
Bench), it was observed:-
"27. In HeroVinoth v. Seshammal [ HeroVinoth v. S
eshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 ] , this Court referred to
and relied upon Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd.
[ Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg.
Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314 ] and other judgments and
summarised the tests to find out whether a given set of
questions of law were mere questions of law or
substantial questions of law. The relevant paragraphs
of the judgment of this Court in Hero Vinoth [ Hero
Vinoth v. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 ] are set out
hereinbelow : (SCC p. 554, para 21)
"21. The phrase "substantial question of law", as
occurring in the amended Section 100 CPC is not
defined in the Code. The word substantial, as
qualifying "question of law", means of having
substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or
considerable. It is to be understood as something in
contradistinction withtechnical, of no substance or
consequence, or academic merely. However, it is clear
that the legislature has chosen not to qualify the scope
of "substantial question of law" by suffixing the words
"of general importance" as has been done in many
other provisions such as Section 109 of the Code or
Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The substantial
question of law on which a second appeal shall be
heard need not necessarily be a substantial question of
law of general importance. In Guran Ditta v. Ram Ditta
[ Guran Ditta v. Ram Ditta, 1928 SCC OnLine PC 31 :
(1927-28) 55 IA 235 : AIR 1928 PC 172 ] the phrase
"substantial question of law" as it was employed in the
last clause of the then existing Section 100 CPC (since
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/403/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/09/2024
undefined
omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for
consideration and their Lordships held that it did not
mean a substantial question of general importance but
a substantial question of law which was involved in the
case. In Chunilal case [ Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd.
v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314 ]
the Constitution Bench expressed agreement with the
following view taken by a Full Bench of the Madras
High Court in Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. Noony
Veeraju [ Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. Noony Veeraju,
1951 SCC OnLine Mad 100 : AIR 1951 Mad 969 ] :
(Chunilal case [ Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v.
Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314 ] , AIR
p. 1318, para 5).
5. ... when a question of law is fairly arguable, where
there is room for difference of opinion on it or where
the Court thought it necessary to deal with that
question at some length and discuss alternative views,
then the question would be a substantial question of
law. On the other hand if the question was practically
covered by the decision of the highest court or if the
general principles to be applied in determining the
question are well settled and the only question was of
applying those principles to the particular facts of the
case it would not be a substantial question of law. 28.
To be "substantial", a question of law must be
debatable, not previously settled by the law of the land
or any binding precedent, and must have a material
bearing on the decision of the case and/or the rights of
the parties before it, if answered either way."
(Emphasis supplied)"
9. Resultantly, the second appeal fails and stands dismissed,
in limine, at admission stage.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
