Law: Electricity Act (IX of 1910)

Section: 26(6) & 54-C

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 9

Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 42 & 54

Electricity Act (IX of 1910)-------Ss.26(6) & 54-C---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9---Suit for declaration and perpetual injunction---General jurisdiction of Civil Courts---Plaintiff had sought declaration to the effect that electricity bill for relevant month was wrong, incorrect and ineffective upon rights of plaintiff---Perpetual injunction restraining defendant to claim amount of disputed bill was also sought as consequential relief---Suit having been concurrently decreed by Trial Court and Appellate Court, defendant had filed revision petition against said orders---Defendant had contended that only remedy available to plaintiff was to file an application under S.26(6) of Electricity Act, 1910 before Electric Inspector and that suit filed by plaintiff was not maintainable and concurrent judgments and decrees of Courts below were coram non judice---Contentions of defendant were repelled firstly because said objection was never raised by defendant before the Courts below, defendant, in circumstances could not be allowed to raise such objection for the first time at revisional stage; secondly subsection (6) of S.26 of Electricity Act, 1910 dealt with. "Meter" only---Provisions of S.26(6) of Electricity Act, 1910 could be invoked where there was difference or dispute between a licensee and a consumer with regard to "Meter", maximum demand or other measuring apparatus as the same was or was not correct---Dispute in the present case between parties was not with regard to "Meter", or maximum demand indicator or other measuring apparatus---Simple question involved in the case was that electricity of plaintiffs was disconnected by defendant, but despite such disconnection same was shown and payable which was challenged by plaintiff by filing of suit---No bar existed in the Electricity Act, 1910 in filing civil suit and Civil Court being Court of general jurisdiction could try the same---Suit was maintainable, in circumstances---Courts below had properly appreciated evidence available on record---In absence of any misreading or non-reading of evidence or any illegality or material irregularity in impugned…