Judgment:
Rs.No.4972 of 2012 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.4972 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:21.05.2014 Gurudawara Singh Sabha ....Appellant Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.
2.
To be referred to reporters or not?.
3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Present:- Mr.Sandeep Moudgil, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.G.S.Hooda, Advocate for the respondents.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) Plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the demand of `17,357/- raised by the respondent as arrears of electricity consumption charges is bad, illegal and not binding upon his rights seeking further consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents to disconnect the electricity connection from its premises.
The suit was contested by the defendant-respondents on the ground that demand was raised legally for the outstanding amount against the appellant.
Kadian Savita 2014.05.26 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Rs.No.4972 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence recorded a concurrent finding against the appellant holding that demand of `17,357/- as arrears of electricity consumption charges was based on the record i.e.audit report etc.Challenging the aforesaid judgments and decrees of the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below are liable to be set aside as both the Courts below have ignored the fact that before raising the demand, no notice was issued to the appellant and thus, he was condemned unheard.
Be that as it may, keeping in view the meagre amount involved in the suit itself and keeping in view the provisions of Section 102 CPC, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below observing that substantial questions of law, as raised, do not arise.
At this stage, it is also useful to refer to the observations of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited versus Jagdish Lal (2014) 3 SCC156wherein the fact has been noticed that superior Courts are burdened and choked with unnecessary litigation on petty issues.
Dismissed.
May 21, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE Kadian Savita 2014.05.26 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh