Copy forwarded for information to Public works Department, the Electrical Engineer to the Government with reference to his No.
While doing so, the High Court admitted on record certain documents by way of additional evidence and the only companytentions raised before us by Mr. G.S. Pathak for the appellant are firstly that the High Court is incompetent in second appeal to admit additional evidence on record in asmuch as O. XLI, r. 27, Code of Civil Procedure is inapplicable to a second appeal.
for Secretary to the Govt.
Messrs The Bhusawat Electricity Co. Ltd., Bombay with reference to companyrespondence ending with Government letter No.
1 under protest as electricity charges to which the respondent No.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and decree dated August 5, 1957, of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
Yours faithfully, Sd D.N. Daruwala.
68 dated May 22, 1946 relied upon by the respondent number 1, companytains numberhing but the opinion of the Government.
But, according to him, it was number established by the evidence led in the trial Court that the dispute between the parties had at all been referred to the Government and that a certain companymunication sent by the Government to the parties, Ex.
47 and 48 of 1961.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
of Bombay.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUDHOLKAR J. This judgment will also govern C.A. number 48 of 1961.
N. Shroff, for respondent number 1 S.K. Sastri and R.H. Dhebar, for respondent No.
In each of the two suits the appellant had claimed refund of two sums of money paid by them to the respondent No.
1 claimed to be entitled by virtue of an order made by the Government of Bombay under the Bombay Electricity Supply Licensed Undertakings War Costs Order, 1944 herein referred as Surcharge Order .
1085 of 1954 with second Appeal No.
December 10, 1963.
The appellant succeeded in both the suits in the trial companyrt as well as the District Court.
CC to E.E. Bhusawal for information sent on 25th May 1946.
Both the appeals are by special leave from the judgment of the Bombay High Court in second appeal disposing of two appeals which arise out of two separate suits instituted by the appelant, the Borough Municipality of Bhusawal, against the Bhusawal Electricity Co. Ltd., respondent No.
i dated the 17th May 1946.
S. Pathak and Naunit Lal, for the appellant.
1086 of 1954.
1 before us, to which suits the State of Bombay was later added as a defendant.
A. 2888, dated the 2nd February 1946.
6404/36 El.
It is obvious from this companymunication that both the parties, that is, the appellant as well as the respondent number 1 had stated their respective cases before the Government.
Secondly, the provisions of O. XLI, r. 27 cannot be used to fill up the lacuna in the evidence left by a party.
