Executive Engineer, P.S.E.B vs Sat Pal
2024 Latest Caselaw 8329 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Executive Engineer, P.S.E.B vs Sat Pal on 20 April, 2024

Author: Anil Kshetarpal

Bench: Anil Kshetarpal

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053302




                                         2024:PHHC:053302
108 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                  AT CHANDIGARH

                                         RSA-2784-1994 (O&M)
                                         Date of decision: 20.04.2024

Executive Engineer, PSEB and another
                                               ....Appellants

             Versus

Sat Pal and another
                                               ..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:-    Mr. Dhruv Walia, Advocate for the appellants

             Mr.Abhishek Kaushik, Advocate for
             Mr. V.K.Jindal, Advocate for the respondents


ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)

1. In this Regular Second Appeal, the concurrent findings of

fact arrived at by the courts below, while decreeing the plaintiff's suit

restraining the defendants from recovering the amount of Rs.58,032/- on

account of alleged theft of energy, decreed by both the courts below, has

been challenged. It has been found that the plaintiffs have not produced

the report of the meter testing laboratory or the electricity consumption

meter, which is alleged to have been tampered with. It has been found

by both the courts below that the defendants (appellants) failed to

substantiate their plea that the plaintiffs had tampered with the electricity

consumption meter.

2. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length

and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.

3. Learned counsel representing the appellants failed to draw

the attention of the Court to any substantive error in the judgments

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053302

RSA-2784-1994 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:053302

passed by the courts below arising from mis-reading or non-reading of

evidence.

4. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere

is made out.

5. Hence, dismissed.

6. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

20.04.2024                                      (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha                                                 JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :         Yes/No
Whether reportable :                Yes/No




                                  2 of 2