This being a case of theft of electricity, the respondent was charged Rs.11,37,222/ as penalty.
It is pointed out that the same was number maintainable in view of Indian Electricity Haryana Amendment Act, 1998 in short the Amendment Act i.e. Haryana Act No.4 of 1998.
The premises of the respondent were checked by the officials of the appellant Nigam.
But the High Court only referred to the submission of the respondent and held that whether theft companymitted was to be adjudicated by reference to the Electrical Inspector.
Replication to the said written statement was filed by the respondent.
Checking Report in this regard was prepared by the officials.
It was found that the respondent was companymitting theft of electricity by providing bolt under the CT Chamber of the meter.
The appellants filed written statement, inter alia, raising preliminary objections as regards the maintainability of the Suit.
LLS 42 by the appellant Nigam on 11.10.2002.
On removing the earth strip from the bolt and isolating the bolt from the CT Chamber, it was numbericed that there was disconnection of earth neutral wire which caused the stoppage of the meter.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the Second Appeal filed by the appellants in terms of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the Code .
Challenging the aforesaid demand by memo dated 12.10.2000, respondent filed a Suit for declaration with companysequential relief of mandatory and permanent injunction before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division , Gurgaon.
It was numbered that appellant number1 ought to have brought on record the evidence of some technical person regarding companymission of theft and only then it would have been substantiated.
Background facts, as projected by the appellants, are as follows The respondent was given electric companynection bearing No.
