JUDGMENT P.K. PALLI, J.—The case comes up for confirmation of the order passed by this Court dated 22nd September, 1997. Vide order referred to above, the respondents were restrained from disconnecting the electricity supply of the plaintiff. When the matter came up before the Court on 3rd November, 1997, it was thought desirable that the matter be examined by the Superintending Engineer (Electrical) to solve the controversy between the parties. The parties had agreed for the matter being examined by the authority concerned. The Superintending Engineer was directed to examine the documents and the respective stand of the parties and record their statements, if necessary. It was further directed that the report be made available to this Court on or before 8.1.1998. The stay order granted earlier was extended till further orders. 2. It is not disputed that the plaintiff is depositing the current payment regularly. In the report made by the Superintending Engineer as available to this Court, It has been said that the dispute is in the method of calculation in respect of the recording of the actual energy which mistake came to be noticed in January, 1997. After re-scheduling the bill, it has been found-that the plaintiff is liable to pay Rs. 21,50,625.80 paise. Towards the concluding part of the report, the Superintending Engineer has given an opinion that the plaintiff be directed to deposit this amount in 12 equal instalments, Mr. R.L Sood, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff, states that the report is not accepted by his client as the S.E. cannot become the Judge in his own cause. Mr. Sood has further brought to my notice the provisions contained in Subsection 6 of Section 28 of the Indian Electricity Act and is sought to be contended that the claim raised by the Board beyond the period of six months cannot be considered. The plaintiff has filed suit for injunction against the defendant Electricity Board laying challenge to the demand which has been raised by the Electricity Board in respect of the outstanding balance. In reply, it is said that the load was sanctioned and released in the year 1991 and the consumer continued to be billed as per consumption recorded by the meter. The case of the Board is that due to an inadvertence the last digit of the meter remained ignored while computing the consumer consumption. In reply, it is said that the load was sanctioned and released in the year 1991 and the consumer continued to be billed as per consumption recorded by the meter. The case of the Board is that due to an inadvertence the last digit of the meter remained ignored while computing the consumer consumption. The digit 10 was read as unity since the installation of the meter till December, 1996. The error was detected in January, 1997 whereafter the plaintiff was informed of the mistake and the bill for outstanding balance was prepared. Learned Counsel has brought to my notice the provisions contained in Section 24 of the Electricity Act and has further relied upon AIR 1997 SC 1101, M/s. Swastic Industries v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and (1996) 8 SCC 647, W.B. State Electricity Board v. Fakir Chand Rice Mills and others. Learned Counsel appearing for the Board thus contends that the plaintiff has to pay this amount to the Board, failing which the Board is well within its authority to disconnect the electricity supply. 3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at length and after going through the pleadings and the case law cited at the bar, I find that it is not a case of pilferage, defective meter or theft of energy. The provisions of Sub-section 6 of Section 26 are not even remotely attracted to the facts of the present case. This provision deals with situation where difference or dispute has arisen whether the meter is not correct and in that situation the matter is to be examined by the Electrical Inspector who would estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer, during such time, not exceeding six months. 4. According to Section 24 of the said Act, the Board has the right and authority to discontinue the supply when a person neglects to pay the charges for energy or any sum due from him in respect of the supply of the energy. Sub-section 2 of Section 24 provides that where dispute is required to be determined by the Electrical Inspector and has been referred to him and licensee shall not exercise the powers unless the Inspector has given such decision. 5. A reading of the pleadings makes out that there was a mistake in the multiplying factor of 10 to the account for actual consumption of energy consumed. 6. 5. A reading of the pleadings makes out that there was a mistake in the multiplying factor of 10 to the account for actual consumption of energy consumed. 6. It is not disputed that the connection was released and the energy meter was provided by the consumer. The meter is in position and there is no complaint that it is not functioning properly. It is further not disputed that the plaintiff has been paying the bills as prepared by the Electricity Board regularly. 7. It is further not disputed that after the stay order was granted by this Court, the consumption is being bided with the multiplier of 10 and is being paid regularly by the plaintiff. 8. It thus comes to surface that the dispute is in respect of the charges, demand for which has been raised by the Board from the date of the connection till December, 1996 which comes to Rs. 21.50 lacs approximately. The question as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief finally is to be decided after obtaining evidence of the parties. In the case law cited from the side of the defendants, it has been held that in the matters of money claimed at least half of the amount is to be directed to be deposited. The case related to a demand of Rs. 28 lacs which electricity department had raised against the petitioner in that case. In the circumstances, the consumer was directed to deposit ½ of the demand raised. 9. In the other case Section 24 of the Electricity Act came up for interpretation. It was held that the Electricity Board had power to discontinue supply on the non payment of charges by the consumer. It was held that though the Board had the right to file a suit and the limitation had been prescribed for it, it does not take away the right conferred on the Board under Section 24 to make demand for payment of charges and on neglecting to pay the same, they have the power to discontinue the supply or cut off the supply as the case may be. In that case also, the Electricity Board had issued a supplementary bill raising a demand. The matter was disputed before the Consumer Forum. The complaint was allowed holding that the claim was barred by limitation of three years. In that case also, the Electricity Board had issued a supplementary bill raising a demand. The matter was disputed before the Consumer Forum. The complaint was allowed holding that the claim was barred by limitation of three years. The matter was thereafter agitated before the National Commission. The National Commission relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court and concluded that there was no limitation for making the demand by way of supplementary bill. Section 60-A of the Electricity Supply Act with respect to enlargement of the period of limitation in certain circumstances was also taken note of. 10. In para 5 of the report, it has been held that the right to recover the charges is one part and the right to discontinue the supply of electrical energy to the consumer who neglects to pay charges is another part of it. The right to file the suit does not take away the right of the Board to make demand for the payment of charges and on failure to pay, to discontinue the supply or cut off the supply as the case may be. 11. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the whole matter, I direct that the plaintiff shall deposit half of the amount in question, which would be paid to the defendant-Electricity Board. This amount is ordered to be deposited in six monthly instalments of equal amount. On the non-deposit of two consecutive instalments, the stay order granted by this Court shall be deemed to be vacated and the Electricity Board would be well within its right to discontinue or cut off the supply of energy to the plaintiff. The first instalment shall become due on or before March 10,1998 and every subsequent instalments shall henceforth be paid by the 10th of each calendar month till half of the amount demand of which has been raised by the Board is liquidated. 12. It is further made clear that in case the plaintiff succeeds in proving that this amount was not payable to the defendants, the defendants shall refund this amount with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., to be paid to the plaintiff within three months of the suit being decreed. The stay application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Dasti copy on usual terms. Stay application disposed of.