(O&M) Pseb v. Sat Pal Singh







      
  
   

 

 !"#$%$ & '

(#)* 

+&, -

.# ($#$ / ("

  000011..

&

2(%+% 



.$&3) 0000
%1 &"& % 
'

 45'
056 
5
 

       

 

56 
5*7( .8 This is a defendant's Second Appeal against concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below while decreeing the plaintiff's suit for the grant of decree for mandatory injunction directing him to restore his electric connection and also pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining them from recovering Rs.20,374/- on the basis of Memo No. 2708 dated 24.07.1989. 2.

The respondent was running a small flour mill. It was alleged by the appellant(defendant) that he was committing theft of electricity. On that basis Memo No. 2708 dated 24.07.1989 was issued. Both the courts below found that the said Memo was not issued in accordance with law. 3.

Heard learned counsel representing the appellant at length and with his able assistance perused the paper book along with the requisitioned record. 4.

Though, learned counsel representing the appellant made a sincere attempt, however he failed to draw attention of this Court to misreading and nonARCHANA ARORA 2024.03.21 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document







  reading of material evidence. He also failed to draw attention of the Court to any perversity in the impugned judgment.

   

     !"      "

6.

The present appeal is dismissed accordingly.

756 
58  '

(#)*  archana 9) )(%1 :$&3;( % &"  % 9) )((1 (

-.

 ARCHANA ARORA 2024.03.21 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document