M/S Rama Industries vs M.P.E.B.
2023 Latest Caselaw 7190 MP

                                       1




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                            AT JABALPUR
                                  BEFORE
                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                 ON THE 3rd OF MAY, 2023

                           FIRST APPEAL NO.47 OF 1999

       Between:-

       M/S RAMA INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS
       PROPRITOR SHRI ANIL KALIA S/O
       SHRI B.D. KALIA, R/O INDUSTRIAL
       AREA KATNI, TEHSIL MURWARA,
       DISTRICT KATNI (M.P.)

                                                                  ..............APPELLANT
       (BY SHRI AYUSH CHOUBEY, ADVOCATE)

AND

       M.P.   ELECTTRICITY          BOARD,
       THROUGH        ITS      DIVISIONAL
       ENGINEER, M.P.S.E.B. KATNI (M.P.)

                                                                 ............RESPONDENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the Court passed the
following:
                                       JUDGMENT

This first appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 13/10/1998 passed by 2 nd Additional District Judge, Murwara, Katni in Civil Suit No.40-A/1993, whereby dismissing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that the demand raised by the defendant vide electricity bill to the tune of Rs.32,115/- be declared null and void and defendant be restrained from making recovery of the said amount.

2. In short the facts are that the plaintiff instituted the suit with the allegations that the plaintiff is engaged in the business having electricity connection service No. 007594 and is paying the electricity charges regularly, who started his business in January 1992 and cleared the electricity bills upto December 1990 but suddenly the defendant raised a bill of Rs.32,115/- dated 27/01/1993 without mentioning the clear details of consumed units and period of consumption, whereas the plaintiff had already paid entire charges of the previous bills. With the aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff instituted the suit and prayed that the demand of Rs.32,115/- raised by way of bill dated 27/01/1993 be declared null and void and defendant be restrained from recovery of that amount.

3. The defendant appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint allegations and justified the demand of Rs.32,115/- raised by way of Bill (Ex.P/5) with the contentions that in the month of March 1992, the meter installed in the plaintiff's factory burned out and new meter was installed on 29/10/1992 containing 9063 reading. Upon inspection on 11/12/1992, the meter reading was 14700 and after deducting previous reading 9063 from 14700, an average unit of one month came to be 3933. Because old meter was not recording correct reading, therefore, the plaintiff was sent electricity bills of minimum units and after installation of new meter, it was found that the previous electricity bills sent to the plaintiffs were of less than the consumed units. As such, according to the load sanctioned to the plaintiff, the bill of Rs.32,115/- was rightly raised for which the plaintiff is liable. The plaintiff has not paid the requisite court fees and the suit before the civil Court is not maintainable.

4. On the basis of pleadings, learned Court below framed issues and recorded evidence of the parties and after due consideration of the same, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 13/10/1998.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the plaintiff was paying the electricity charges regularly since after installation of the meter and when the new meter was installed, the defendant raised excessive bill of Rs.32,115/- illegally, whereas the electricity of such amount was not consumed by the plaintiff. He further submits that the learned Court below has without considering the material available on record, dismissed the suit vide impugned judgment and decree. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

7. Following point for determination is arising in the first appeal for consideration of this Court :-

Whether learned trial Court has committed illegality in dismissing the civil suit ?

8. From the record it is clear that initially in the plaintiff's factory the electricity units reading meter was installed in the month of January 1992 over which 50 horse power load was sanctioned. As the old meter burned out, therefore, new meter was installed.

9. It has come on record that previously installed meter was not recording the units properly, therefore, bills of minimum units were raised although were paid by the plaintiff. Thereafter, on the basis of reading recorded in the new meter, the bill of Rs.32,115/- (Ex.P/5) was raised by the defendant as per fresh calculation, which on the basis of material available on record cannot be said to be illegal.

10. After arguing at length learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree.

11. It is pertinent to mention here that although while deciding the issue No.2, learned Court below has held that the plaintiff has valued the suit properly and has paid the requisite court fees but in the present case, the suit for declaration has been valued at Rs.32,115/- and fixed court fees of Rs.30/- has been paid and by valuing the suit for permanent injunction at Rs.300/- the court fees of Rs.30/- has been paid.

12. In the similar facts situation Full Bench of this Court in the case of Subhash Chand Jain Vs. Chairman, MPEB and others AIR 2001 M.P. 88 (FB), has considered the question of valuation and court fees. Relevant paragraphs of which are as under :-

"Plaintiff instituted suit against the defendants seeking relief on restraining them not to dis- connect the electricity supply to his workshop 'Vinay Agro Industries Khurai (Sagar)' pursuant to additional bills served on the plaintiff by the defendants for an amount of Rs. 2, 14,747.00. The defendants contested the suit. They preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 alleging that the plaintiff had valued the suit for Rs. 600.00 and paid Court-fee of Rs. 60.00 though his prayer was against recovery of Rs. 2,14,747.00 on which Court-fee had not been paid; therefore, the suit was liable to be rejected for arbitrary valuation. The plaintiff submitted that the suit has been filed for permanent in - junction not to disconnect the electricity supply and Court-fee had been paid accordingly. Consequently, the plaint was not defective and the objection was liable to be dismissed.

2. The objection advanced by the defendants prevailed with the trial Court which held that the plaintiff was liable to pay ad- valorem Court-fee. This view the trial Court took on the basis of this Court's judgment in Mangilal Jain v. MPEB, Jabalpur (1977) 2 Weekly Notes, 480. Plaintiff challenged this order through revision petition which appeared before one of us (Brother Dipak Misra, J.). By order dated May 8, 2000, the case has been referred to larger Bench. After dealing with certain judgments on the question, learned Judge said -

"9. It is to be noted that in Mangilal Jain (supra) reliance was placed on the case of Badri Lal (supra) where Sathappa Chettiar (supra) was referred. Thus I find that there is apparent conflict between Mangilal and Jagdish Prasad. It is also noticed the Courts below are following Mangilal at times and Jagdish Prasad on certain occasions. In view of this I am of the considered opinion an authoritative pronouncement is called for on this point for better future guidance. As the matter relates to payment of Court- fees and the whole case relates that I am inclined to recommend the whole case for reference to the larger bench under 9 (1) of the M.P. High Court Rules. The question that requires to be answered is whether Mangilal Jain (supra) lays down the correct law or Jagdish Prasad (supra)."

This is how the matter comes before the Full Bench.

3 to 6. x x x x x x x

7. Settled legal position seems to be that plaint has to be read as a whole. Allegations in the plaint including the substantive relief claimed must be - the basis for settling the court-fee payable by the plaintiff. Mere astuteness in drafting the plaint would not glaze the jurisdiction of court for looking at the substance of the relief asked for. The nature of suit under Section 7

(iv) is such where the Legislature could not lay down fixed standard thereby leaving it to the plaintiff to mention it. But where he attempts to under-value the plaint and the reliefs, Court has to intervene. While doing so, concept of real money value forms integral part of court en- quiry where relief sought has real money value which can be objectively ascertained. Where a plaintiff has been made liable to pay specified amount and asked to pay the same and he claims to avoid it, obviously, he seeks relief to that effect and in case, he avoids payment of court-fee by drafting the plaint in such a way that results in under-valuation of the plaint and the relief, it will be a case of arbitrary and unreasonable under-valuation which Court is bound to correct.

8. Substantial relief asked for in the context of the facts of the case forms basis for settling correct court-fee payable in the cases. Consistent view of this Court has been on lines we have taken in this case. There was no occasion for learned single Judge in Jagdish Prasad's case (1987 MP LJ 452) (supra) to chart different track. Assuming learned single Judge had some reservations about the view taken by two Division Benches of this Court, desirable it would have been to seek reference of the matter to larger Bench and we do not find any compelling reason justifying departure from the settled legal position in this behalf.

9. Consequently, Jagdish Prasad's case (1987 MPLJ 452) (supra) has not been decided cor- rectly and is, therefore, over ruled and the view taken in Mangilal Jain v. MPEB, Jabalpur (1977) 2 Weekly Notes, 480 and Badrilal Bholaram v. State of M.P. 1963 MPLJ 717 : AIR 1964 Madh Pra 9 is approved.

10. Result of aforesaid discussion is that order of the trial Court dated 23-12-1999 in C.S. No. 45A of 1999 requiring the plaintiff to pay ad-valorem court-fee is confirmed. The plaintiff will pay the court-fee within a month. Costs of parties."

13. In the light of aforesaid decision in the case of Subhash Chand Jain (supra) and in my considered opinion, the plaintiff was required to value the suit at Rs.32,115/- and was required to pay ad-valorem Court fees thereon and in absence of which the plaintiff was not entitled to continue with the suit.

14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no illegality appears to have been committed by learned trial Court in dismissing the suit.

15. Resultantly, the first appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. However, no order as to costs. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE RS

RASHMI Digitally signed by RASHMI RONALD VICTOR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya

RONALD Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=dcca7715f3f684c24752dbb505e5b18 6c02289cadaa753ee20545e7ad1b52d64, pseudonym=625746E87FF4AC3C6DB695A8A AC47B69FE61026F,

VICTOR serialNumber=9EBC5CA1D2C50306E16173EA 7E3552F54DAFD50DD81AA3585D181CA5858 5377A, cn=RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Date: 2023.05.08 11:05:58 +05'30'