- (1.) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal whose suit for the recovery of unpaid electricity charges was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Udaipur by his judgment dated October 14, 1959.
(2.) THE circumstances which it is necessary to notice for the disposal of this appeal succinctly stated are these Maharana Bhupal Electric Supply Co. Ltd. , Udaipur (hereinafter called "the Company") was a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act. 1910. It was to provide electrical energy in the town of Udaipur. The Company was charging annas six per unit of electricity for domestic purposes from its consumers. It is said that it was running in losses and therefore with effect from february 1. 1951 it increased the rate to annas eight per unit of electricity for domestic use. It justified this increase on the ground that the licence dated 31st december. 1948. Clause (8) entitled it to make this increase. The increase in the rate was resented to by consumers and they desired to get its justification examined. The plaintiff continued charging this rate upto July 1951. By that date the Indian Electricity Supply Act, 1948 (Act 54 of 1948) (hereinafter called the "supply Act") had come into force in the State of Rajasthan with effect from April 1, 1951 by virtue of the provisions contained in the Part B States Adaptation of laws Act. In view of the provisions of the Supply Act the consumers and the minister of the Government and the Company entered into an agreement which is contained in Schedule 'a' annexed to the plaint whereby it was agreed that the plaintiff shall provisionally charge at the rate of annas six per unit and a Rating committee shall be constituted for determining the reasonableness of the charge claimed by the Company and the rate determined shall be charged from 1-2-1951. This agreement was signed on September 14, 1952. It is Exhibit 13. The Company pursuant to the agreement provisionally collected electricity charges for domestic use at the rate of annas six per unit. The Rating Committee reported that the 'reasonable return' worked out according to the Sixth Schedule of the supply Act justified Company's charging annas eight per unit for domestic use. The report was published in the gazette and the Government gave its approval on october 24, 1953 but the rate was permitted to be charged with effect from July 1, 1953. According to the Company, the Government as a consumer paid a sum of rs. 1,00,006/-less than what it should have pursuant to the tripartite agreement dated September 8. 1952 and after necessary notice it instituted a suit for the recovery of the said amount. The State of Rajasthan as a defendant halfheartedly denied even the existence of the tripartite agreement Ex. 13 to which a Minister was a party and urged that even if such an agreement existed it was contrary to the provisions of Section 57 of the Supply Act and therefore not binding on the state and besides the suit was barred by time. It was also urged that a dispute such as this should have been decided by arbitration and that the Company had a statutory obligation to treat all consumers alike and it was erroneous for it to claim enhanced rates only from the Government as a consumer.
(3.) THE learned Civil Judge framed nine Issues arising out of the rival contentions of the parties and held that the tripartite agreement amounted to a contract; but it was not proved that a sum of Rs. 1,00,006/-was payable by the defendant; that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 52 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 excepting for a period of two months; that the suit was barred under Section 57; that issues Nos. 6, 8 and 9 were not pressed and he held that Section 57 barred the contract. Aggrieved by this judgment the plaintiff has come up in appeal.;