JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is a Civil Revision and has been directed against the order dated 19.3.1998, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Faridabad, who dismissed the appeal of the Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter called "the Board") and affirmed the order dated 17.9.1994 passed by the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Faridabad who dismissed the application under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act filed by the present petitioner-Board. 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner. A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the respondent M/s. Bhupindera Steels Pvt. Ltd. against the Board and the prayer made by the plaintiff was that the Board be restrained from realising the amount of Rs. 34,72,315/-. The case set up by the plaintiff in the trial Court was that the maximum demand (contracted demand) allocated for the factory premises was 1400 KVA and the connected/sanctioned load was 1600 KWH. The respondent found that the maximum demand indicator (MDI) was registering a reading far more than the actual one, therefore, the plaintiff requested the Board to carry out the fault by installing a check meter which was actually installed with effect from 25.5.1989 to 31.7.1989. The Board after comparing the check meter reading and existing meter installed with the factory of the respondent, sent the impugned bill which was disputed by the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, the Board filed an application under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act praying that the suit may be stayed and the matter may be referred to the arbitration as per clause No. 29 of the agreement Ex.A.I. It was pleaded by the Board that the Board has issued the impugned bill to the plaintiff in accordance with the rules and regulations and as per the tariffs of the Board and the plaintiff firm is liable to pay the said amount. According to Clause 29 of the agreement A.I. every dispute, difference, question, matter or claim arising out of supply of electricity has to be referred to the sole arbitration of Chief Engineer or his nominee. It was pleaded by the Board that it was always ready and willing to get the matter in question decided by the sole arbitrator. 3. Notice of the application was given to the plaintiff. It was pleaded by the Board that it was always ready and willing to get the matter in question decided by the sole arbitrator. 3. Notice of the application was given to the plaintiff. Reply was filed and it was contended that plaintiff never agreed to get all the matters adjudicated through the arbitrator. The bill was not issued in accordance with the Rules and Regulations because Clause 29 was never agreed upon by the plaintiff. The impugned bill is not only illegal but also the defendant has no right to recover the same. 4. On the above pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the followed issue :- 1. Whether the suit is liable to be stayed under the provision of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, as alleged ? OPP 2. Relief. 5. The parties led evidence in support of their case. For the reasons given in paras No. 6 to 11 of order dated 17.9.1994, the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Faridabad, dismissed the application of the Board under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act. Paras No. 6 to 11 of the order dated 17.9.1994 are reproduced as under :- "Issue No. 1 6. To substantiate this issue AW1 Yashpal Clerk testified that application and agreement was signed by Sh. Narinder Singh, XEN on behalf of Chief Engineer while the same was signed by Shri Bhupender Lal Ghai, on behalf of consumer. He further testified that true photo copy of said agreement was Ex. A.1. He further testified that defendants were ready and willing to refer the matter to arbitration. No evidence has been led by respondent/plaintiff. 7. To substantiate this issue, learned Counsel for applicants/defendants argued that as per clause 39 of agreement, matter was liable to be referred to arbitration. On the contrary, learned Counsel for respondent/plaintiff argued that contents of clause 29 as reproduced in application of defendants and the clause 29 as mentioned in application and agreement Ex.A.1. were entirely different. He further argued that matter in question could have been resolved under the provisions of Indian Electricity Act and the same was not liable to be referred to arbitrator. 8. were entirely different. He further argued that matter in question could have been resolved under the provisions of Indian Electricity Act and the same was not liable to be referred to arbitrator. 8. While having due regards to the contentions of learned Counsel for parties, it can be observed the clause 29 of application and agreement Ex.A.I. states as under :- "Excepting the case of theft/pilferage of electric energy, in the event of any difference or dispute arising between the Board and the consumer in respect of any matter connected with the supply which cannot be determined by these conditions, or by the terms of any agreement between the Board and the consumer and in the event of any difference or dispute arising as to the interpretation of these conditions or of the terms of any agreement between the Board and the consumer, matter shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act, or by reference to the Chief Engineer (P&C) HSEB, or his nominee not below the rank of a Superintending Engineer. This is without prejudice to the right of the Board to affect recovery of the arrears of dues (disputed or otherwise) under the Haryana Government Electrical Undertaking (Dues Recovery) Act, 1970. 9. However, applicants/defendants in their application under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act have mentioned the clause 29 as under :- "29. "Dispute" - every dispute, difference, question, matter or claim arising out of or concerning or relating to the supply of electricity between the Board and the consumer shall be referred to the sole arbitration of Chief Engineer, Planning and Construction of the Board or his nominee not below the rank of Superintending Engineer the decision of the arbitration shall be final and binding on the consumer and the Board." 10. Keeping in view clause 29 as mentioned in application and agreement Ex.A.I. and the clause reproduced in the application, it looks that the contents of those clauses are entirely different. Keeping in view clause 29 as mentioned in application and agreement Ex.A.I. and the clause reproduced in the application, it looks that the contents of those clauses are entirely different. As plaintiff had agreed and signed the application and agreements Ex.A.I. he is bound by clause 29 of the said agreement wherein it is clearly mentioned that in the event of any difference on dispute arising between the Board and the consumer in respect of any matter connected with the supply, it cannot be determined by these conditions or by the terms of any agreement between the Board and the consumer and in the event of any difference or dispute arising as to the interpretation of these conditions or of the terms of any agreement between the Board and the consumer, matter shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act or by reference to the Chief Engineer, HSEB or his nominee. Keeping in view above mentioned clause of agreement, it reveals that as per facts of the case, it has to be decided as to whether the case has to be referred to the Chief Engineer, HSEB for arbitration or the same can be adjudicated upon in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act. 11. Keeping in view fact of the present case, it reveals that plaintiff alleged that maximum demand (contacted demand) at the factory premises is 1400 KVA while the connected/sanctioned load is 1600 KWH. In the month of February, 1988, it was suspected that maximum demand indicator was registering a reading far more than the contracted demand and, therefore, request was made to defendants to carry out necessary corrections. At the request of plaintiff, defendants had installed a Check Meter, which remained installed at the premises of plaintiff from 25.5.1989 to 31.7.1989. Comparison of Check Meter readings and the existing meter reading was made vide letter dated 26.7.1989. Thereafter, impugned bill for payment of Rs. 34,72,315, was issued to plaintiff, failing which, electricity connection of plaintiff was to be disconnected. It is pleaded that plaintiff is not liable to pay the impugned amount as the demand has been raised in view of defective meter. Thereafter, impugned bill for payment of Rs. 34,72,315, was issued to plaintiff, failing which, electricity connection of plaintiff was to be disconnected. It is pleaded that plaintiff is not liable to pay the impugned amount as the demand has been raised in view of defective meter. Keeping in view aforesaid fact, it reveals that matter in question pertains to functioning of meter and the same can be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act and there is no reason to refer the matter to arbitration. Thus, this suit is not liable to be stayed under the provisions of Section 34 of Arbitration Act. Consequently, this issue is decided against applicants/defendants and in favour of respondent/plaintiff." 6. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.9.1994, the Board filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Faridabad who for the reasons given in paras No. 7 to 10 of the impugned order dated 19.3.1998, dismissed the appeal. Hence the present revision. 7. Before, I deal with the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it will be proper for me to incorporate paras No. 7 to 10 of the order dated 19.3.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, which are as under : "7. The perusal of the clause 29 of the Ex.A.I. shows that if there is any difference or dispute arising between the Board and the consumer in respect of any matter connected with the supply or the terms of the agreement or interpretation thereof, the matter shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act or by reference to the Chief Engineer P&C HSEB, or his nominee not below the rank of the Superintending Engineer. It means, the option has been given to the parties to get the matter decided from Arbitrator or in accordance with the provisions/relevant Act. As such, it cannot be said that in all the cases, the matter has to be decided by the Arbitrator. The clause 29 mentioned in the application is thus misleading on the part of the appellants and cannot be taken into consideration. 8. The respondent has alleged in its plaint that maximum demand (contracted demand) at the factory premises was 1400 KVA and the connected/sanctioned load 1600 KWH. The clause 29 mentioned in the application is thus misleading on the part of the appellants and cannot be taken into consideration. 8. The respondent has alleged in its plaint that maximum demand (contracted demand) at the factory premises was 1400 KVA and the connected/sanctioned load 1600 KWH. The respondent found that the maximum demand indicator (MDI) was registering a reading far more than the actual one, therefore, they requested the appellants to carry out the fault by installing a check meter which was actually installed w.e.f. 25.5.1989 to 31.7.1989. The appellants, after comparing the check meter reading and existing meter of the respondent sent the impugned bill worth Rs. 34,72,4315/- which was disputed by the appellant. So, it is clear that the matter in dispute pertained to the proper/improper functioning of the meter. So, it is not necessary to refer the matter to the arbitrator for his decision. 9. In this case, the complicated questions of law and facts are involved. So, in my opinion, it would be appropriate if the matter is considered by the Court in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act. As such, it can be safely said that the appellants have not been able to make out a case for staying the preceding of the case under the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Hence the matter cannot be referred to the arbitration. 10. In view of the discussion above, it is held that the findings arrived at by the learned lower court are perfectly legal and valid and there is no aberration in the same. As such, the same are hereby affirmed. Consequently, the appeal is hereby dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before learned lower Court on 1.4.1998 at 10 a.m. Lower Court file be sent back. Appeal file be considered to the record room after due compliance." 8. I am disposing of this revision with the assistance of Shri Hemant Kumar, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Nobody has given the appearance on behalf of the respondent. 9. Appeal file be considered to the record room after due compliance." 8. I am disposing of this revision with the assistance of Shri Hemant Kumar, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Nobody has given the appearance on behalf of the respondent. 9. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the reasons given by the Courts below are totally erroneous and they have not correctly interpreted the provisions of clause 29 of the agreement A-1, which runs as follows :- "Excepting the case of theft/pilferage of electric energy, in the event of any difference or dispute arising between the Board and the consumer in respect of any matter connected with the supply which cannot be determined by these conditions, or by the terms of any agreement between the Board and the consumer and in the event of any difference or dispute arising as to the interpretation of these conditions or of the terms of any agreement between the Board and the consumer, matter shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act or by reference to the Chief Engineer (P&C) HSEB or his nominee not below the rank of a Superintending Engineer. This is without prejudice to the right of the Board to affect recovery of the arrears of dues (dispute or otherwise) under the Haryana Government Electrical Undertaking (Dues Recovery) Act, 1970." 10. There is a merit in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 11. Let us see what was the case made out by the plaintiff-respondent in his plaint. 12. According to the case of the plaintiff, the maximum demand at the factory premises was 1400 KVA and the connected/sanctioned load was 1600 KWH. The plaintiff found that the maximum demand indictor (MDI) was registering a reading far more than the actual one and therefore, the plaintiff made a request to the Board to carry out the fault by installing a check meter which was actually installed w.e.f. 25.5.1989 to 31.7.1989. Thereafter the demand was made. As per the agreement clause "excepting the case of theft or pilferage of electric energy, if any difference arises between the Board and the consumer in respect of any matter connected with the supply, such matter has to be referred to the arbitration of Chief Engineer or his nominee." 13. Thereafter the demand was made. As per the agreement clause "excepting the case of theft or pilferage of electric energy, if any difference arises between the Board and the consumer in respect of any matter connected with the supply, such matter has to be referred to the arbitration of Chief Engineer or his nominee." 13. In this view of the matter, the matter in controversy was supposed to be referred to the Arbitrator. Both the Courts have not rightly interpreted the clause 29 of the agreement Ex.A.I. to which the parties are bound. 14. Resultantly, this revision is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is hereby stayed. It will always be open to the parties to the suit to make a reference to the nominated Arbitrator for the adjudication of the matter. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision allowed.