Madras High Court
Jayapal vs The Superintending Engineer on 4 February, 2021
S.A.No.1197 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S.A.No.1197 of 2008
and
M.P.No.1 of 2008
Jayapal,
Son of Ramachandra Gounder,
Nadukkuppam Village,
Vinnamangalam Post,
Arni Taluk. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Tiruvannamalai.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (O&M),
Arni.
3. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (O&M),
West Arni. ... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1197 of 2008
Prayer:
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the
judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cheyyar at
Tiruvannamalai dated 22.03.2007 in A.S.No.23 of 2006, reversing the
judgment and decree of the Additional District Munsif Court at Vandavasi
dated 30.06.2006 in O.S.No.76 of 2004.
For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Gayathri
for Sarvabhauman Associates
For Respondents : Mr.V.Viswanathan
****
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree
dated 22.03.2007 passed in A.S.No.23 of 2006 on the file of the
Subordinate Court, Cheyyar, reversing the judgment and decree dated
30.06.2006 passed in O.S.No.76 of 2004 on the file of the Additional
District Munsif Court, Vandavasi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1197 of 2008
2. The suit has been laid by the appellant/plaintiff against the
defendants seeking for the relief of declaration that the letters sent by the
defendants dated 19.08.1996 and 20.09.1996 as void and illegal and
restraining the defendants by means of permanent injunction from
disconnect the schedule service connection on the strength of the abovesaid
letters.
3. From the pleas putforth by the respective parties, it is noted that the
plaintiff would claim that to save his crops, he had out of necessity, taken
the line from the neighbours Balaraman pump set and electric service
connection on 26.07.1996 and due an electrical accident a bull got
electrocuted and died on 27.07.1996 and thereafter he had removed the line
and whereas the defendant would state that the plaintiff had tapped the
electricity power from the over head line directly from SC.No.7 and thereby
the plaintiff had committed the theft of energy by illegally tapping the
electricity from over head line and accordingly alleged that the plaintiff had
committed the offence of theft and resultantly, it is found that the notices
have been issued by the defendants calculating the loss sustained by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1197 of 2008
Electricity Board and the same mentioned therein and challenging the
abovesaid notices issued by the defendants, the suit has come to be laid by
the plaintiffs.
4. The defendants would putforth the defence that the plaintiff had
committed the theft of energy by tapping the power illegally from the over
head line and not from the neighbour's service connection as claimed by him
and thereby the show cause notices have been issued calling upon the
plaintiff to pay the loss sustained by the Electricity Board. Therefore, the
plaintiff's suit is not acceptable and liable to be dismissed.
5. In support of the plaintiff's case, P.W.1 was examined. Exs.A1 to
A4 were marked. On the side of the defendants', D.W.1 was examined. No
document has been marked.
6. On an appreciation of the materials placed on record, both oral and
documentary and the submissions putforth by the respective parties, the trial
court was pleased to decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1197 of 2008
Impugning the judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants
preferred the appeal and the first appellate court, on an appreciation of the
materials placed on record and the submissions made, was pleased to set
aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and resultantly by way of
allowing the appeal preferred by the defendants, dismissed the plaintiff's
suit. Aggrieved over the same, the present second appeal has been preferred
by the plaintiff.
7. Considering the materials placed on record, as rightly concluded by
the first appellate court, when it is noted that the plaintiff has admitted the
commission of theft and when in the criminal action initiated against the
plaintiff, he has also admitted his guilt before the Magistrate Court and paid
the fine in C.C.No.287 of 1986, the same has been rightly taken into
consideration by the first appellate court. Therefore, it is obvious that the
plaintiff has tapped the electricity from the over head line without the
authority/permission of the defendants and an accident had also occurred
consequent thereto, hence the defendants are found to have taken into
consideration, the loss sustained by them by the acts of the plaintiff and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1197 of 2008
accordingly calculating the loss sustained by them, issued notices to the
plaintiff directing him to pay the loss. The plaintiff is found to have failed
to move the concerned appellate authority, despite the intimation of the
same to the plaintiff by the defendants. On the other hand, the plaintiff has
rushed to the Civil Court seeking the reliefs.
8. In the light of the factual matrix available on record, as rightly held
by the first appellate court, when the plaintiff has admitted the commission
of theft, as putforth by the defendants and thereby the loss had been
sustained by the defendants and accordingly the defendants have calculated
the loss sustained by the department and called upon the plaintiff to pay the
same by issuing the notices, in such view of the matter, the plaintiff's case is
that the defendants have issued the show cause notices without any basis as
such cannot be countenanced in any manner. In such view of the matter, the
first appellate court is found to be justified in not accepting the case
projected by the plaintiff and rightly dismissed the judgment and decree of
the trial court and by way of allowing the appeal preferred by the
defendants, dismissed the plaintiff's suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1197 of 2008
9. From the abovesaid factors, when it is found that the first appellate
court has properly appreciated the materials placed on record in the right
perspective both on factual matrix and also on the points of law and no valid
reason has been projected by the plaintiff warranting interference in the
judgment and decree of the first appellate court and the points raised by the
plaintiff in the second appeal are only based on the factual matrix and not
any legal plea, resultantly, I hold that no substantial question of law is
involved in the second appeal.
10. For the reasons aforestated, the judgment and decree dated dated
22.03.2007 passed in A.S.No.23 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate
Court, Cheyyar, reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2006 passed
in O.S.No.76 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court,
Vandavasi are confirmed and consequently the second appeal is dismissed
with costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is
closed.
04.02.2021
mfa
Index:yes
Internet:yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1197 of 2008
T.RAVINDRAN, J.
mfa
To
1. The Subordinate Judge,
Sub Court,
Cheyyar.
2.The Additional District Munsif,
Additional District Munsif Court,
Vandavasi.
Copy to
The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court.
S.A.No.1197 of 2008
and
M.P.No.1 of 2008
04.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
