JUDGMENT 1. 1. This appeal by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City dated Sept. 24, 1979. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Coventry Metals Raj. Private Limited Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the company) filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Board) Assistant Engineer,. C-I Zone, Jaipur and Assistant Commercial Officer. R.S.E.B., Jaipur. According to the plaintiff one M/s. A. Mukerjee Co. was doing business on the premises which were purchased by the company on March 1, 1970. After the aforesaid date the plaintiff company applied for supply of electricity and in pursuance to an agreement dated Dec. 22, 1972, the Board was supplying electricity to the company. The plaintiff further alleged that in pursuance to the an agreement dated Dec. 22, 1972, the defendants were sending the bills every month in respect of the consumption of electric energy by the plaintiff company and all such bills were being paid by the plaintiff company. For the month of August 1977, the defendants sent two bills for Rs. 228.48/- and Rs. 56,627.26/-. In the latter bill in respect of power the defendants had wrongly and un-lawfully added an amount of Rs. 43,061.44/- with which the plaintiff company had no connection. This amount according to the plaintiff related to a period prior to March 1, 1970 when M/s. A. Mukerjee Company was doing business on the premises. On receiving the above bills the plaintiff company wrote a letter dated August 25, 1977 to defendant No. 3 regarding the correction of the bill in respect of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 43,061.44/- and together with the above letter also sent an amount of Rs. 13,794.30/- in respect of the charges of electric energy consumed by the plaintiff-company. Thereafter the plaintiff company received a notice dated August 29, 1977 from the defendants asking the plaintiff company to make the payment of Rs. 43,061.44/- within seven days failing which the supply of electricity to the plaintiff company was threatened to be cut. According to the plaintiff the above mentioned notice dated August 29, 1977 was wholly wrong illegal and null and void. 43,061.44/- within seven days failing which the supply of electricity to the plaintiff company was threatened to be cut. According to the plaintiff the above mentioned notice dated August 29, 1977 was wholly wrong illegal and null and void. The plaintiff in these circumstances prayed that the defendants be restrained by a permanent injunction from cutting the supply of electricity to the plaintiff company in pursuance to the notice dated August 29, 1977 and further not to make any interference in the supply of electric energy to the plaintiff company. The suit was filed on September 1, 1977. 3. The defendants in the written statement took the plea that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 43.061.44/- was legally due against the plaintiff company. It was further alleged that the plaintiff company in its letter dated Jan. 24, 1972 had clearly given an undertaking that the plaintiff company had purchased the assets of A. Mukerjee Company and took the responsibility of making payment of all the liabilities outstanding against A. Mukerjee Company. It was further pleaded that in view of the above circumstances the defendants had rightly added the amount of Rs. 43,061.44/- in the bills and the action taken by the defendants was perfectly justified. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the trial court framed the following issues : "1. Whether notice of defendant No.3 dated 29-8-77 is illegal, unauthorised, defective, null and void for the reasons stated in para No. 11 of the plaint ? 2. Had the plaintiff company undertaken to pay the dues outstanding against A. Mukerjee Company and by virtue of this defendant is entitled to realise the sum of Rs. 43,061.44 in the bill for August 1977 from the plaintiff ? 3. Whether the amount of Rs. 43,061.44/- included in the bill for August 1977 was within limitation and on non-payment thereof electric supply to the plaintiff company could be disconnected ? 4. Whether the plaintiff should have paid court fee on Rs. 43,061.44/- ? 5. Whether the plaintiff has not been properly verified and suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground ? 6. To what relief are the parties entitled ?" 5. 4. Whether the plaintiff should have paid court fee on Rs. 43,061.44/- ? 5. Whether the plaintiff has not been properly verified and suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground ? 6. To what relief are the parties entitled ?" 5. The plaintiff in support of its case examined Shri Sampat Lal Bapna, Director of the plaintiff company and the defendants in support of their case examined Ram Gopal Gupta, Assistant Engineer and Shri R.S. Bhargava, Executive Engineer. Learned trial court under issue No. I referred to the provisions of Section 24(l) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, under which the defendants could have dis-continued the supply of electricity to a consumer. The trial court also considered some portions of the agreement marked Ex. 1 dated December 22, 1972. After considering the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties, the trial court held that the electric supply could be disconnected only when there was failure to pay amount of the bills sent for the energy supplied under the agreement dated December 22, 1972. It was further held that the disputed amount had no concern what-so-ever with the energy supplied in pursuance of agreement Ex. 1. It was further observed that even if the undertaking Ex. A-1 dated January 24, 1972 is taken and held to be valid and enforceable one, it could have furnished an independent cause of action to the defendants to realise from the plaintiff dues outstanding against A. Mukerjee Company but it could hardly entitle the defendants to disconnect electric supply given to the plaintiff under and in accordance with the agreement Ex. 1 when all the bills in respect of supply made under this agreement were being regularly paid. It was further observed that under all the aforesaid circumstances there was room to raise a dispute regarding the payment of the disputed amount and it cannot be said that dispute raised by the plaintiff was not a bonafide one and there was neglect to pay on the part of the plaintiff. Since there was no neglect to pay on the part of the plaintiff, no action under Section 24(l ) of the Indian Electricity Act could be taken. In view of the above findings issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. 6. Since there was no neglect to pay on the part of the plaintiff, no action under Section 24(l ) of the Indian Electricity Act could be taken. In view of the above findings issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. 6. As regards issue No. 2, the trial court observed that without expressing any opinion on the merits or and demerits of the rival contentions of the parties on this point whether defendants are entitled to recover the dues outstanding against A. Mukerjee Company from the plaintiff or not. suffice it to say that it is not necessary to give any finding on this point for the decision of this suit for injunction. It was further observed that there was room for the plaintiff to dispute its liability to pay the dues outstanding against A. Mukerjee Company. 7. As regards issue No. 3 also the trial court held that it was not necessary to decide the point in this suit whether the claim for the disputed amount said to be outstanding against A. Mukerjee Company was within limitation or not. 8. Issue Nos. 4 and 5 were decided against the defendants. As a result of the above findings of issues Nos. 1 to 5, the trial court under issue No. 6 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The trial court thus decreed the suit of the plaintiff and restrained the defendants by means of permanent injunction from dis-connecting electric supply to the plaintiff company (service No. 24650) in pursuance to its notice dated August 29, 1977. 9. Aggrieved against the above judgment and decree, the defendants have filed this appeal. 10. I have heard Mr. H.P. Gupta appearing on behalf of the defendant-appellants and Mr. K. K. Mehrish on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent. 11. It was contended by Mr. Gupta that the trial court committed a serious error of law in not deciding issue Nos. 2 & 3 on merits. It was submitted that the above issue Nos. 2 & 3 were very important and material for the decision of the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff. It was also contended that the plaintiff' ought to have paid court fee on the entire amount of Rs. 43,061.44/- and the trial court wrongly decided issue No. 4 against the defendants. It was further argued that the plaintiff company had given an undertaking vide Ex. It was also contended that the plaintiff' ought to have paid court fee on the entire amount of Rs. 43,061.44/- and the trial court wrongly decided issue No. 4 against the defendants. It was further argued that the plaintiff company had given an undertaking vide Ex. A-1 on January 24, 1972 in which it was clearly mentioned that the plaintiff company had taken over the business of M/s A. Mukerjee Company as a running concern and had undertaken to pay all the liabilities, what-so-ever, which may arise against M/s A. Mukerjee Company and requested the Assistant Engineer (C-I Zone). R. S. E. B. Jaipur to transfer the electricity connections existing in the name of M/s. A. Mukerjee Company to the name of the plaintiff company with immediate effect. Mr. Gupta thus argued that in view of the above undertaking given by the plaintiff they were liable to make payment of Rs. 43,061.41/- which was a liability outstanding against A. Mukerjee Company. It was submitted that so far as the agreement dated December 22, 1972 is concerned that was a general agreement executed between the consumer and the Board under the general conditions of supply. It was thus submitted that bath the agreement dated December 22, 1972 and the undertaking dated January 24, 1972 should be read together and the Board was justified in disconnecting the supply of electricity in case the aforesaid amount was not paid by the plaintiff company. 12. On the other hand Mr. Mehrish appearing on behalf of the plaintiff company supported the judgment given by the trial court. It was submitted that the undertaking dated January 24, 1972 had no value in the eye of law and in any case has no effect after the agreement dated December 22, 1972 made between the parties. It was also argued that the undertaking dated January 24, 1972 was itself totally vague and the defendants themselves were not knowing any liabilities of the previous dues against A. Mukerjee Company. It was also submitted that though the agreement for the supply of electricity between the plaintiff company and the defendants had been executed as early as on December 22, 1972 but no claim was put-forth against the plaintiff company till the billing month of August 1977 when the aforesaid amount due against A. Mukerjee Company was for the first time demanded from the plaintiff company. It was also submitted that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 43,061.44/- related to some dues alleged to be outstanding against A. Mukerjee Company for the period November, 1967 to July 1969. In these circumstances, it was submitted that even such dues were not admitted to be payable by A. Mukerjee Company itself and no steps were taken by the Board to realise such amount against A. Mukerjee Company and were also barred by limitation after a period of six years. 13. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record. 14. The facts are not in much dispute in as much as the plaintiff company had purchased the running concern of M/s A. Mukerjee Company on March 1, 1970. The electricity was supplied to the plaintiff company in pursuance to a written agreement Ex. 1 dated December 22, 1972 in accordance with the general conditions of supply. Right from 1972 till August 1977 no demand what-so-ever was made from the plaintiff-company in respect of any dues alleged to have been existing against A. Mukerjee Company. It has come in the evidence of the defendants witnesses that the liability of Rs. 43,061.44/- related to transformer rent and difference of low tension tariff and high tension tariff for the period from November 1967 to July 1969 against A. Mukerjee Company. The letter of undertaking Ex. A-1 dated January 24, 1972 on which strong reliance is placed by the defendants does not make a specific mention of the above liability but it only mikes a general mention that the plaintiff company had undertaken to pay all the liabilities, what-so-ever. which may have arisen against A Mukerjee Company. The defendants have failed to show that the above liability was admitted by A. Mukerjee Company or by the plaintiff-company and as such there was no dispute with regard to the above liability, Admittedly the Board remained silent even for a period of five years from 1972 to 1977 and introduced the above liability for the first time in a bill sent for the month of August 1977. In view of these circumstances the plaintiff was perfectly justified in disputing such liability in a bonafide manner and the defendants had no justification to give a notice of dis-connecting the supply within seven days in case the aforesaid amount was not paid by the plaintiff company. 15. Section 24(I) of the Indian Electricity Act reads as under:- "Discontinuance of supply to consumer neglecting to pay charge. Where any person neglects to pay any charge for energy or any sum other than a charge for energy due from him to the licensee in respect of the supply of energy to him, the licensee may after giving not less than seven clear days' notice in writing to such person and without prejudice to his right to recover such charge or other sum by suit cut off the supply and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply-line or other works being the property of the licensee though which energy may be supplied, and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply are paid but no longer." 16. It is not disputed that the discontinuance of the supply to consumer can only be made under the above provision. A bare reading of the above provision shows that the discontinuance of supply to consumer can be made when he neglects to pay the charges. It has been further made clear that where any person neglects to pay any charge for energy or any other sum for charge of energy due from him to the licensee in respect of the supply of energy to him then alone the licensee may, after giving not less than seven clear days' notice in writing can cut off the supply. In the present case it cannot be said that the plaintiff company neglected to pay any charge for energy in respect of supply of energy to him. As already mentioned above in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the disputed amount was due from the plaintiff company to the Board in respect of the supply of any energy to the plaintiff company. As already mentioned above in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the disputed amount was due from the plaintiff company to the Board in respect of the supply of any energy to the plaintiff company. It has been contended by learned counsel on behalf of the defendants that in view of the undertaking given by the plaintiff company on January 24, 1972 the supply of energy to A. Mukerjee Company should be construed as supply of energy to the plaintiff company itself under the above provision of Section 24(1) of the Indian Electricity Act. I see no force in this contention. The power to discontinue the supply to consumer is only available when he neglects to pay charges due from him in respect of the supply of energy to him alone. In case the defendants wanted to claim any dues outstanding against A. Mukerjee Company from the plaintiff company in pursuance to the undertaking given by the plaintiff company on January 24, 1972, they were free to resort to other remedies available to them according to law but they could not have resorted to the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Indian Electricity Act under the threat of discontinuance of supply to the plaintiff company. The present suit was directed only against the notice dated August 29, 1977 whereby the defendants were threatening to discontinue the supply of electricity to the plaintiff company. In view of these circumstances this was a suit purely for permanent injunction and it was not necessary for the plaintiff company to pay advalorum court fee on the entire amount of Rs. 43,061.44/-. In the present suit when the trial court was taking the view that the defendants were not entitled to disconnect the supply of electricity to the plaintiff company then it was not necessary to decide the claim on merits on the basis of the alleged undertaking given by the plaintiff company dated January 24, 1972. Even if for arguments sake it may be considered that the plaintiff company was liable to make the payment of any dues outstanding against A. Mukerjee Company, the remedy of the defendants was not to discontinue the electricity supply and they were free to take recourse for the realisation of the amount in accordance with law against the plaintiff company. Even if for arguments sake it may be considered that the plaintiff company was liable to make the payment of any dues outstanding against A. Mukerjee Company, the remedy of the defendants was not to discontinue the electricity supply and they were free to take recourse for the realisation of the amount in accordance with law against the plaintiff company. In this view of the matter the trial court was justified in not deciding issue Nos. 2 & 3 on merits as plaintiff company had become entitled to the relief of injunction on the basis of the finding of issue No. 1 alone in favour of the plaintiff company. 17. In the result, I find no force in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.Appeal dismissed. *******