B. P. Jeevan Reddy, J. - (1.) Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of a learned single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the Civil Revision Petition filed by the appellant. The Civil Revision Petition was preferred against the Judgment of the Third Additional District Judge of the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur in Execution Case No. 17-A of 1970 whereunder the learned Judge had allowed the application filed by the respondent-judgment-debtor.
(3.) The appellant-decree-holder, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, is a statutory corporation constituted under Section 5 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The Government of Madhya Pradesh had granted a licence to the respondent under the said Act for generating and supplying electricity to consumers at Bilaspur. The appellant exercised the option of purchasing the respondent' undertaking on 15-1-1968 and 5-4-1964 as provided by Section 6 of the Act. Accordingly, the possession of the undertaking was delivered to the appellant but while doing so, the respondent did not deliver possession of properties described in Schedule-I and Schedule II to the plaint. The appellant was, therefore, obliged to file the Civil Suit No. 17-A of 1960 for obtaining possession of the said properties on the ground that they form part of the undertaking. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court on 25th August, 1973. The respondent and some other persons preferred an appeal to the Madhya Pradesh High Court being First Appeal No. 39 of 1974. The respondent raised a contention in the said appeal that the property mentioned in Schedule-II to the plaint was sold to other appellants and, therefore, did not form part of the undertaking. This plea was rejected by the High Court which held that the property in both the Schedules did form part of the undertaking. Rule dismissing the appeal the High Court observed. "We may, however, add that it would be open to the defendant No. 1 to seek compensation for these properties in an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law." The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.;