Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) VIDE order dated 21.01.1994, this second appeal was admitted inter alia on the following substantial question of law: (A) Whether in view of Section 5 of the Rajasthan Government Electrical Undertakings (dues recovery) Act, 1960, the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable and issue No. 5 has rightly been decided against the defendant -appellant ? Heard the counsel for the appellant -defendant (hereinafter 'the defendant') and the respondent -plaintiff (hereinafter 'the plaintiff') and perused the impugned judgments and decree dated 27.09.1993 and 07.09.1991, passed by the trial court and the first appellate court, respectively.
(2.) MR . Alok Garg, appearing for the defendant, at the outset has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sitaram & Anr. [2008 WLC (Raj.) UC 181] and submits that the aforesaid judgment fully covers the substantial question of law framed in this appeal and detailed earlier in this judgment. He submits that it has been held by this Court in Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (Supra) that no suit against a demand of electricity dues was maintainable with reference to Section 5 of the Rajasthan Government Electrical Undertakings (dues recovery) Act, 1960 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1960'), without the pre -deposit of the amount in issue albeit under protest. Section 5 of the Act of 1960 is reproduced hereunder: 5. Suit to challenge liability to payment: (1) Where a notice of demand has been served on the debtor or his authorised agent under Section 4, he may, if he denies his liability to pay the dues, penalty or costs or any part of any of them institute a suit after depositing with the prescribed authority the aggregate amount specified in the notice of demand under protest in writing for the refund of the same. (2) A suit referred to in sub -section (1) may be instituted in a civil court of competent jurisdiction at any time within six months from the date of deposit with the prescribed authority and subject to the result of such suit, the notice of demand shall be conclusive proof of the various dues, penalty and costs mentioned therein.
(3.) COUNSEL for the defendant further submits that admittedly the amount of electricity dues under demand i.e. Rs. 5,542.45/ - was not deposited by the plaintiff prior to the filing of the suit and consequently the pre -condition of Section 5 of the Act of 1960 not having been satisfied, the suit was not maintainable.;