Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a billing issue between the Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur and the Punjab State Electricity Board regarding an electricity connection taken for a tubewell. The appellant had regularly paid an average monthly bill of around Rs.5,000, but was served a bill of Rs.82,300 in March 1994, which prompted the appellant to file a suit challenging the bill. The trial court ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the high bill was due to the negligence of the Board, which had improperly connected the electricity meter. The first appellate court upheld this decision. However, the High Court reversed these findings, justifying the revised bill based on a corrected meter reading that allegedly showed only one-third of the actual consumption. The appellant contended that the High Court erred by not framing a substantial question of law and failing to provide an opportunity for a hearing before revising the bill. The respondent-Board argued that the appellant had not shown any prejudice from the lack of a substantial question of law. The Supreme Court analyzed the legal provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly Sections 100 and 103, emphasizing that a second appeal must involve a substantial question of law. The Court found that the High Court had not adhered to these requirements and had interfered with the concurrent findings of fact without justification. The Supreme Court restored the trial court's judgment, concluding that the revised bill was not valid due to procedural irregularities and violations of natural justice, as no prior notice was given to the appellant before the bill revision. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - High Court's failure to frame a substantial question of law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Sections 100, 103 - The High Court allowed the second appeal without framing a substantial question of law, which is a prerequisite for entertaining such an appeal. The trial court and first appellate court had correctly appreciated the facts and evidence, and the High Court's interference was unwarranted. Held that the judgment of the High Court was set aside and the lower courts' decisions were restored (Paras 39-40).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in allowing the second appeal without framing a substantial question of law and without providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court dated 12.1.2001 and restored the judgment and decree of the trial court and first appellate court, allowing the appeal with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal
- substantial question of law
- natural justice
- Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- Section 100
- Section 103
