Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. - (1.) This second appeal filed under section 100 of C.P.C. is against the judgment and decree dated 22.3.2007 passed by Addl. District Judge, Parbatsar in Civil Appeal No. 9/2000 whereby the Appellate Court has upheld the judgment and decree dated 7.4.2000 passed by Civil Judge (JD), Nava City in Civil Original Suit No. 11 /95 by which the suit filed for injunction by the respondents was decreed in his favour.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the recovery order passed by the defendants-appellants before the Trial Court and it was prayed that the bill issued in the month of January, 1995 whereby the recovery of Rs. 4,20,958/- has been sent is illegal because the said amount is related to the period commencing from January, 1992 to September, 1993 and for that period the electricity bill sent by the defendant-appellants was regularly paid but now for the said period as per the defendants-appellants, the proper reading was not made, therefore, bill for recovery was sent.
(3.) Learned Trial Court after framing five issues held that no documentary evidence has been filed for the said recovery and the reason which is given by the defendants-appellants before the Trial Court that due to ill-sightedness of the meter-reader, proper bill was not because proper reading was not recorded by him. Learned Trial Court after framing issues and granting opportunity to lead evidence to both the parties decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and held that defendants-appellants are not entitled to recover Rs. 4.18,662.30 paisa because no evidence has been produced before the Court to substantiate the said recovery. The only reason was given that due to ill-sightedness, the meter reader did not record the proper meter reading for the period commencing from January, 1992 to September, 1993.;