Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/2811/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 2811 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 11101 of 2010
In
FIRST
APPEAL No. 2811 of 2010
=========================================================
P.G.V.C.L.
- Appellant(s)
Versus
MER
NAGABHAI NATHABHAI - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MS
MANISHA LAVKUMAR for
Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Defendant(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 18/11/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the
learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Porbandar in Special Civil Suit
No.659/2001 dated 07.01.2010, whereby, the said suit came to be
dismissed.
2. The
facts in brief are that the premises of the respondent was inspected
by the checking squad of the appellant-company and during such
inspection, it was found that the respondent had allegedly committed
theft of electricity. Therefore, a bill of theft dated 23.10.2000 for
Rs.8,21,176/- was served upon the respondent. However, the respondent
did not make payment of the said amount. Therefore, the appellant
filed the suit in question before the Court below for recovery of the
amount along with interest and delay charges. However, the said suit
came to be dismissed by way of the impugned order. Hence, this
appeal.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the appellant and perused the documents on
record. Before the Court below, the appellant-company was not able to
establish its case against the respondent by producing cogent
documentary evidence. In fact, the appellant was not able to show by
producing cogent evidence that the respondent herein had committed
theft of electricity. It appears that the Notice (Ex.19) allegedly
issued to the respondent is silent as to the nature, manner and
method of committing theft by the respondent. In fact, it appears
that the said Notice was never served upon the respondent. The F.I.R.
filed in connection with the alleged theft also does not show the
respondent as an accused. Apart from that no documentary evidence was
produced to show that there existed a contract between the original
plaintiff and the defendant.
4. Looking
to the facts of the case and the evidence on record, I am of the
opinion that the Court below was completely justified in rejecting
the suit of the appellant. I am in complete agreement with the
reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Court below
and hence, find no reasons to interfere with the same.
5. For
the foregoing reasons, the appeal is summarily dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the civil application also stands rejected.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top