Madras High Court
The Superintending Engineer vs R.Rajendran on 11 March, 2022
S.A.(MD)No.535 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
S.A.(MD)No.535 of 2010
1.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Thanjavur.
2.The Junior Electrical Engineer (O & M),
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Nadimuthu Nagar,
Pattukkottai. ... Appellants
Vs.
R.Rajendran ... Respondent
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code,
against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.4 of 2008 dated 29.09.2009 on
the file of the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, reversing the judgment and
decree made in O.S.No.16 of 2006 dated 12.12.2007 on the file of the Sub
Court, Pattukkottai.
For Appellants : Mr.B.Ramanathan,
Standing Counsel.
For Respondent : Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
S.A.(MD)No.535 of 2010
JUDGMENT
The Tamilnadu Electricity Board is the appellant in this second appeal.
The respondent herein filed O.S.No.16 of 2006 before the Sub Court,
Pattukottai for forbearing the appellants herein from effecting disconnection of
the electricity supply till the resolution of the dispute raised by him.
2.The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and one other witness as P.W.2
and Exs.A1 to A16 were marked. On the side of TNEB, three officials were
examined as defence witnesses and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked.
3.After consideration of the evidence on record, by judgment and decree
dated 12.12.2007, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Challenging the same, the
plaintiff filed A.S.No.4 of 2008 before the Principal District Court, Thanjavur.
By the impugned judgment and decree, the decision of the trial Court was
reversed and the first appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed as prayed.
Aggrieved by the same, this second appeal came to be filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.535 of 2010
4.The second appeal was admitted on 19.08.2010 on the following
substantial questions of law:-
“ 1.Whether in law, the judgment and decree of the lower
appellate Court is sustainable in granting the relief of
injunction and mandatory injunction without the prayer of
declaration?
2.Whether in law, the judgment and decree of the lower
of appellate Court reversing the well considered judgment and
decree of the trial Court without assigning any reasons which
he ought to have given is sustainable?
3.Whether in law, without approaching the alternative
remedy available under the terms and conditions, the suit filed
by the plaintiff is maintainable in terms of judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1997 (5) SCC 120? and
4.Whether the judgment and decree of the lower
appellate Court is sustainable without reversing the finding of
the trial Court regarding the maintainability of the suit is
sustainable?”
5.The learned standing counsel for TNEB reiterated all the contentions
set out in the memorandum of grounds and called upon this Court to answer the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.535 of 2010
substantial questions of law in favour appellants and set aside the impugned
judgment and decree and restore the decision of the trial Court.
6.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
impugned judgment and decree do not call for any interference.
7.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the
evidence on record. The respondent/plaintiff was a consumer of electricity. He
had purchased a building and was carrying out certain repair works/additional
construction. The specific allegation of the appellant Board is that for carrying
out such works, the plaintiff must have obtained temporary connection and paid
the charges under tariff VI. He had not done so. When this was pointed out,
the plaintiff had made some payment. Audit objections were later raised
stating that the calculation was not correctly done. Therefore, demand notice
was issued by TNEB officials under Ex.A7 dated 09.01.2006. Thereupon, the
plaintiff through his counsel issued legal notice dated 16.02.2006 (Ex.A8)
raising a dispute. Under Section 42 r/w. 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003,
whenever dispute regarding liability to make payment arises, the same will
have to be resolved by the jurisdictional Superintending Engineer. If payment
as contemplated under Section 56 of the Act is made, then till the resolution of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.535 of 2010
the dispute, electricity connection cannot be disconnected. In the case on hand,
the plaintiff was threatened with disconnection. That is why, he filed the
aforesaid suit. I carefully went through the suit prayer. The plaintiff had only
sought limited relief. He only wanted the appellants to resolve the dispute
through the competent authority and till such resolution, the electricity
connection should not be cut off. Such a suit is clearly maintainable. There
was no need to seek any relief of declaration for getting such a injunction
decree. The first appellate Court correctly approached the legal issue.
However, it went wrong on facts. Even during the pendency of the first appeal,
the plaintiff appears to have given a letter dated 15.07.2009 seeking permission
to clear the liability in easy installments. Vide communication on the same day,
the Executive Engineer (O & M), Pattukkottai had sent a letter to the plaintiff
accepting his request and permitted him to clear the arrears in three
installments. The plaintiff paid the first installment on the same day. Since the
outcome of the first appeal was in his favour, he did not pay the other two
installments. I felt that since the plaintiff himself had accepted his liability and
also paid one installment, this second appeal could be disposed of by
permitting the respondent to pay the balance amount in easy installments. The
learned counsel for the respondent sought pass over. The learned counsel for
the respondent contacted the plaintiff on whatsapp and after getting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.535 of 2010
instructions submitted that this second appeal could be disposed of based on
the plaintiff's letter dated 15.07.2009.
8.Therefore, this second appeal is disposed of in the following terms:-
The plaintiff's liability was quantified on 15.07.2009 as
Rs.2,08,467/-. The plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.69,489/- on the
same date. He was liable to make a further payment of
Rs.1,38,978/- to the appellant Board/TNEB/TANGEDCO. Almost
13 years have elapsed since then. The plaintiff is therefore obliged
to pay interest. The plaintiff cannot really be blamed. The
appellants have needlessly misconstrued the nature of injunction
order passed by the trial Court. Therefore, in the interest of justice,
it is enough if the plaintiff pays simple interest at the rate of 6% per
annum. The interest burden would come to Rs.1,08,402/-. Adding
the two components, the total liability of the plaintiff comes to
Rs.2,47, 380/-. I permit the plaintiff to clear the same in four
installments. The plaintiff shall pay a sum of Rs.61,870/- on the
first working day of every month. The plaintiff's liability will
commence from April 2, 2022 onwards. In other words, by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.535 of 2010
02.07.2022, the plaintiff should have cleared his liability in toto. If
the plaintiff commits default and fails to clear the liability in full by
02.07.2022, TANGEDCO can not only resort to disconnection of
plaintiff's electricity supply but also file execution petition for
enforcing this decree. No costs.”
11.03.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
To:
1.The Principal District Court,
Thanjavur.
2.The Sub Court,
Pattukkottai.
Copy to:
The Record Keeper,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.535 of 2010
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias
S.A.(MD)No.535 of 2010
11.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
