JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the Plaintiff-Appellants against the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge No.1, Bharatpur dated 14.12.1990. 2. The appellants - M/s Jai Ganesh Industries and Oil Mills entered into an agreement with the Rajasthan State Electricity Board on 31st January 1974 and in that agreement, it was stipulated that the respondent Board will supply 300 KVA power to the Mill for a period of 5 years. On 1.1.1979, the appellants gave a notice to the respondent Board to the effect that it would not be requiring 300 KVA power and desired that in future, their contract demand would be 170 KVA - this was a notice of six months. After expiry of six months, the contract demand between the parties automatically became 170 KVA. 3. In 1983, the appellants gave a notice of six months and desired a reduction from 170 KVA to 150 KVA. Thus the contract demand became 150 KVA w.e.f. 11.11.83. The appellants have claimed that they complied with all the formalities needed for reduction from 170 KVA to 150 KVA. Despite the aforesaid reductions, the respondent Board billed the appellants on the basis of 300 KVA. After calculating the arrears, the appellants were threatened for disconnection of power supply. The power supply was ultimately disconnected w.e.f. 7.1.1984. Thereupon the appellants filed a suit for mandatory injunction and declaration on 14.2 1984. 4. On 12.4.1984, the Court below directed the appellants to deposit a sum of Rsk5,000 as arrears of minimum charges from Dec.1983 upto the date of disconnection of power supply and a sum of Rs.100 as fee for reconnection charges. The appellants were also directed to move an application for the grant of new contract for power supply within 3 days of passing of the order. The appellants complied with the aforesaid order of the Court. After the power supply was restored on 17.4.1984 the appellants paid the charges on the basis of 150 KVA. The suit was thereafter transferred to the Addl. District Judge No.2 Bharatpur where it was contested by the respondent Board. 5. The suit of the plaintiff-appellants was dismissed on 2.6.1988. However, the contract demand between the parties was held to be for 150 KVA w.e.f. 12.4.1984. The appellants did not challenge the aforesaid judgment dated 2.6.1988. 6. The suit was thereafter transferred to the Addl. District Judge No.2 Bharatpur where it was contested by the respondent Board. 5. The suit of the plaintiff-appellants was dismissed on 2.6.1988. However, the contract demand between the parties was held to be for 150 KVA w.e.f. 12.4.1984. The appellants did not challenge the aforesaid judgment dated 2.6.1988. 6. In pursuance of the judgment dated 2.6.88, the respondent-Board demanded Rs.16,98,792.88 from the appellants on the basis of 300 KVA. Mini,mum amount of Rs.8,54,052.88 was demanded by the Board to avoid disconnection. 7. The appellants filed a suit in the Court of District Judge Bharatpur. On the stay application for temporary injunction, the Board was restrained from disconnecting the power supply. The Board contested the application and by the impugned order dated 14.12.90, the application for temporary injunction was dismissed. Hence this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the judgement of the Addl. District Judge passed in 1988 became final and the rights of the parties with regard to power supply had been determined finally. In that judgment the con,tract demand between the parties was held to be 150 KVA w.e.f. 12.4.1984. There,fore, it was illegal on the part of the Board to make a demand on the basis of 300 KVA. 9. Admittedly, vide judgment dated 2.6.1988, the suit of the plaintiff-appellants was dismissed and the effect of the same would be res-judicata in the eye of law. Before me, learned counsel for the appellants urged that no appeal was filed against the aforesaid judgment in view of the fact that the observations made therein were in their favour and the appellants were advised not to prefer any appeal against the said judgement. I am not inclined to agree with the contention. Findings recorded in the judgment are material and not stray observations made here, there or somewhere in the judgment. The suit of the appellants was dis,missed and the effect of the came was that the defendant-Board was held to be entitled to claim the charges on the basis of 300 KVA. If the appellant feels that he was misguided, he has to blame himself. Legal liability of the appellants did not vanish due to wrong advice given to it. The suit of the appellants was dis,missed and the effect of the came was that the defendant-Board was held to be entitled to claim the charges on the basis of 300 KVA. If the appellant feels that he was misguided, he has to blame himself. Legal liability of the appellants did not vanish due to wrong advice given to it. So far as the impugned order is concerned, the court below has dealt with all the three aspects required for granting or refusing injunction and thereafter came to the conclusion that neither the appellants have any prima-facie case in their favour, nor balance of convenience nor irreparable injury. In the event of success of the suit, the plaintiffs can be compensated in terms of money. 10. As a court of appeal, this Court can reverse the judgment of the trial court if it finds any mistake apparent on the face of record. In the instant case, the judgement of the court below is eminently just and correct. Learned counsel for the appellants next argued before me that State Electricity Board enforce cuts from time to time and the appellants are not liable to pay for the period power-cuts were imposed. What referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants was in exercise of power different than which is being exercised claiming the demand of money. What appears to me from the record is that the appellants did not surrender any part of 300 KVA, for the supply of which, demand has been made. Moreover, the suit of the appellants is pending and they may take this plea before the trial court. 11. For what has been said above, I find no force in the present appeal which is dismissed without any order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******