JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Money suit No. 87 of 1978 was filed for refund of a sum of Rs. 9089.08 paise from the Bihar Electricity Board, which according to plaintiff was realised from him in excess to the actual energy charges and as security deposit. 2. Admittedly on 30.10.1974 an agreement, Ext. 1 was entered into between plaintiff and Electricity Board for supply of electrical energy to Mahua Kala Mica Mines to facilitate extraction of Mica therefrom. 3. It was alleged that the Board failed to supply minimum electrical energy as per the agreement and inspite of the fact that it realised excess amount against the actual supply of electrical energy from the plaintiffs Mines, details of aforesaid excess amount was mentioned in the plaint, total being Rs. 9089.08 paise. 4. Defendant contested the suit and asserted that supply of energy was normal and there was no wilful default or intentional curtailment of energy entailing loss to the plaintiffs Mines, Some times stoppage of energy was caused due to certain circumstances beyond the control of the Board and its employees and as such, they were not responsible for the loss, if any, caused to the plaintiff with such stoppage of supply of energy. 5. The suit was dismissed holding that there was nothing on record to the by coersive method the Board realised excess amount in question. The said amount was earned money of the Board on account of supply of energy to the plaintiff, which was realised in terms of the agreement. Ext. 1 and the tarrif enforced. 6. Defendant admitted that security money amounting to Rs. 2086/- was made by the plaintiff, out of which Rs. 2,000/- was adjusted towards final bill of the plaintiff, vide letter No. 390 dated 2.4.1977 and, therefore, refund of the aforesaid amount of security deposit to the plaintiff did not arise plaintiff thereafter, filed Money Appeal No. 2 of 1982. The said appeal was dismissed by impugned Judgment and decree dated 8.9.1987, holding that plaintiff failed to establish that defendant realised the excess amount from him and the security deposit was likely adjusted towards final bill of the plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- and the balance amount of Rs. 50/- was to be adjusted in the final bill. Plaintiff, therefore, was not entitled to any decree for refund of the amount claimed. 7. 2,000/- and the balance amount of Rs. 50/- was to be adjusted in the final bill. Plaintiff, therefore, was not entitled to any decree for refund of the amount claimed. 7. Both the Courts below recorded con current findings of fact. There is no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed, but without costs.