JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.7.1988 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rajasmand in Civil Original Suit No. 2/86. 2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent filed one suit for declaration, injunction and refund of Rs. 94695.15. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff-respondent is a public limited company, engaged in manufacturing of the marble tiles etc. The plaintiff-respondent applied for electric connection from the appellant-defendant. The appellant-defendant sanctioned the electric connection of the plaintiff-respondent and for which a latter was issued on 7.7.83 by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short 'the BSEB') which contained a condition that the plaintiff will deposit Rs. 2,86,654 with the defendant-RSEB which shall be adjustable amount against the consumption charges. The plaintiff deposited the above amount for which a receipt was issued by the RSEB vide Receipt No. 69, Book No. 8968 dated 5.8.83 and, thereafter, the electric connection was issued in favour of the plaintiff. The RSEB started issuing bills to the plaintiff-respondent Company for their electricity consumption. According to the plaintiff, the bills which were issued by the RSEB were required to be adjusted with the amount already deposited with the RSEB by the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiff was not liable to make payment of the bills issued by the RSEB. 3. Faced with threat of disconnection, the plaintiff filed a suit for injunction before the court of Munsif, Rajsamand wherein an order of injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the RSEB, that the electricity connection of the plaintiff shall not be disconnected in view of the already deposited amount of Rs. 2,86,654. Therefore, the plaintiff started depositing the excess amount of Rs. 2,86,654/- which was demanded by the RSEB. 4. In view of the above facts, the plaintiff alleged that since plaintiff's money was lying with the defendant and, therefore, plaintiff is not defaulter in payment of charges of electricity consumption and, therefore, the plaintiff is not liable to make any payment which the defendant RSEB is demanding on the ground of late payment surcharges. Despite no liability, the plaintiff was forced to make payment of Rs. 94,695.15 against the late payment surcharge to the defendant. The plaintiff submitted a detailed chart of the recovered amount as Schedule-K along with the plaint. Despite no liability, the plaintiff was forced to make payment of Rs. 94,695.15 against the late payment surcharge to the defendant. The plaintiff submitted a detailed chart of the recovered amount as Schedule-K along with the plaint. The plaintiff since had to make payment of late payment surcharges under threat of disconnection and, therefore, the plaintiff after making payment filed the present suit for recovery of amount of Rs. 95,695.15 with the relief of declaration that it may be declared that in spite of deposit of Rs. 2,86,654, any amount shown by the RSEB in the head of non-payment surcharges may be declared illegal and it was further sought that the amount of Rs. 94,695.15 deposited by the plaintiff against the above non-payment surcharges category may be adjusted in future bills which will be issued by the RSEB to the plaintiff and it is further sought relief of injunction that till the above amount is not adjusted, no late surcharges be levied against the plaintiff and the interest be awarded against the wrongfully recovered amount. 5. The defendant in its written statement admitted that Rs. 2,86,654/- was deposited by the plaintiff as advance, to be adjusted against the future electricity consumption bills. According to the defendant-RSEB, though the amount was deposited by the plaintiff and it was to be adjusted towards future electricity bills, even then the plaintiff was required to make payment of the electricity bills month-wise. It was further specifically admitted that the amount was adjustable. The defendant further submitted that the defendant is working in the interest of public and when the defendant's financial position was weak, therefore, because of this reason, the above advance money was demanded from the plaintiff. It is further stated that the amount will be adjusted in due course. 6. The issues were framed by the trial court. The evidence was recorded and the trial court in its judgment and decree dated 30.7.88 held that the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that till Rs. 2,86,654 deposited by the plaintiff is not adjusted against the electricity consumption bills of the plaintiff, the defendant has no right to demand late payment surcharges from the plaintiff. The trial Court held that the civil court has jurisdiction to decide the present suit and the plaintiff has paid proper court fee and, therefore, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for Rs. The trial Court held that the civil court has jurisdiction to decide the present suit and the plaintiff has paid proper court fee and, therefore, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for Rs. 94,695.15 to be adjusted in future bills of the RSEB after declaring the above recovery as illegal. 7. The appellant preferred this appeal against the above judgment and decree. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant tried to assail the judgment and decree of the trial court on the ground that when the Board was having poor financial position and the amount of Rs. 2,86,654 was demanded from the plaintiff to be adjusted in future electricity consumption bills then the BSEB alone was competent against the electricity consumption bills and in what proportion it is to be adjusted. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the very reason for deposit clearly shows that from the deposited amount the electricity bills were to be adjusted but it cannot be said that amount of the electricity consumption will be adjusted from the advance deposit from the first bill. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that Ex. 1 issued by the RSEB nowhere says that above amount deposited as advance money will be adjusted from the first electricity bill. Therefore, also, the plaintiff was not entitled to withhold payment of electricity bills. 10. It is clear from the facts mentioned above that it is an admitted position that the Board itself asked the plaintiff to deposit Rs. 2,86,654/- and for this purpose the letter Ex. 1 was issued. In this very letter, it is clearly mentioned that this amount is to be adjusted against the electricity consumption charges. The RSEB has not reserved any right to adjust this amount on any future date but clearly mentioned in the letter itself that it will be adjusted against the consumption charges of the electricity consumed by the plaintiff. Therefore, there is no basis in the submission of the appellant that the RSEB was to decide from which date the above amount will be adjusted against the consumption of the electricity. If there was any intention of the Board to this effect, then it should have been in the letter of offer itself. Therefore, there is no basis in the submission of the appellant that the RSEB was to decide from which date the above amount will be adjusted against the consumption of the electricity. If there was any intention of the Board to this effect, then it should have been in the letter of offer itself. A plain and simple meaning of the facts mentioned in the above letter dated 7.7.83 (Ex.1) makes it clear that the above amount is required to be adjusted against the consumption charges for electricity of the plaintiff. Therefore, whenever the first electricity consumption bill was issued, it should have been adjusted from the amount already deposited by the plaintiff. There is no right given to the Board in this letter to decide unilaterally the date of adjustment to be started. Even the witness of the appellant D.W.1 Ram Laxman Bangar, in his statement before the court below, specifically admitted that above amount deposited by the plaintiff was advance money and it was also admitted by the witness of the defendant that this amount was deposited to be adjusted against the electricity consumption bills. It was also admitted that there was no specific contract with respect to the date of adjustment to start from. The witness Ram Laxman Bangar of the defendant-RSEB stated in his evidence that since the financial position of the Board was poor, therefore, according to agreement whenever the financial position of the RSEB will improve then only the above amount will be adjusted. Though there is a statement of the witness of the Board that the amount is to be adjusted when the financial position of the Board will permit it but there is no basis for this statement in view of the written agreement Ex. 1. 11. The trial Court has appreciated the evidence of the plaintiff as well as of the circumstances in which the agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant and correctly held that till the above amount of advance money was lying with the appellant-defendant Board had no jurisdiction to demand the late payment surcharge. I do not find any illegality in the above judgment. 12. No other point was pressed before me.Hence, there is no substance in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******