AMIT RAWAL, J. - (1.) The appellant-defendant is aggrieved of the concurrent finding of fact whereby the suit at the instance of the Punjab State Electricity Board for recovery of amount of Rs. 4,56,009/- along with interest 18% per annum has been decreed on account of assessment of unauthorized use of electricity/theft by the defendant.
(2.) Mr. Sandeep Bansal, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant in support of his contention had raised the following multi-fold arguments:- (i) That at best, the Electricity Board could have initiated proceedings under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. (ii) That Ex.P1, inspection report does not specify any date and time nor does bear signature of the Senior Superintending Engineer (Enforcement Wing). The provisions of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 had not been complied with and there cannot be assumption of the alleged electricity wire being put on the overhead wires to draw the electricity connection for the purpose of running the marriage hall. No independent witness of the vicinity had been joined. (iii) That the assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act cannot be the basis for seeking recovery as the appellant is not a consumer.
(3.) All these facts are not noticed by the courts below and thus urges this Court to formulate the substantial questions of law as contained in the memorandum of appeal.;