JUDGMENT This is plaintiff's first appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff filed suit for recovery for a sum of Rs. 27,183.90 paise from the defendant. The Additional District Judge, Satna, by his judgment and decree dated 30th April 1993 passed in C.S. No. 17-B/89 dismissed the suit. Plaintiff gets supply of electricity from the defendant M.P. Electricity Board. On 23.9.87 plaintiff wrote letter to the defendant that the metre installed at his premises is moving with a fast speed and the consumption recorded is in the metre is much more than what has been consumed. In Feb. 1988 the metre was removed but the plaintiff was supplied with the electricity. Ultimately on 14.9.88 a new metre was installed which was sealed on 16.9.88. According to the plaintiff this metre also became defective and on request made by it the same was replaced on 16.11.88. According to the plaintiff by notice dated 13.1.89 (Ex. P-5) he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 27,183.90 paise for consumption of electricity during the period March 1988 to August 1988 failing which the plaintiff was threatened dis-connection of the electricity supply. It is the assertion of the plaintiff that he protested against the raising of the aforesaid bill but ultimately deposited the same on 17.1.89 under protest. The case of the defendant is that bill for the period March 1988 to August 1988 has been charged on the basis of the average consumption of precedings 3 months. The trial Court on pleadings of the parties framed various issues and held that the defendant has not realised the aforesaid amount illegally. It further held that the metre was removed from the premises of the plaintiff in Feb. 1988 and was again installed on 24.9.89 and sealed on 18.9.89. Shri Agarwal appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the defendant ought not to have raised the bill on assessed consumption. According to him, as there was defect in the metre, it was incumbent upon the defendant to refer the matter to the Electrical Inspector under section 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. I am afraid the submission is devoid of any substance. Section 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act contemplates decision on a dispute about the defect of metre by the Electrical Inspector. I am afraid the submission is devoid of any substance. Section 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act contemplates decision on a dispute about the defect of metre by the Electrical Inspector. In the present case, it is established that the metre was removed in Feb. 1988 and thereafter again installed on 14.9.88. The amount in question is for the period March 1988 to August 1988, during this period there was no metre installed at the premises of the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, no decision was possible by the Electrical Inspector under section 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act. Only submission made on behalf of the appellant having failed, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly it is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.