JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J. - This is plaintiffs appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code) challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the defendant-board has successfully established its entitlement for recovery of the amount of Rs. 10,142.40. The plaintiff-appellant has filed the suit for permanent injunction with the averment that it has electricity connection of the factory situated at Hassanpur, Hodal Road with electricity meter No. MS/9. It was claimed that the plaintiff-appellant never committed any default in making payment of any bill at any time. It was further pleaded that the defendant-board through its S.D.O. raised a demand of Rs. 14,315 for the month of December 1978 against the plaintiff-appellant by adding a sum of Rs. 10,142.40. The aforementioned amount was added on the allegation that for the months of August 1976 to April 1977, the plaintiff-appellant has consumed more electricity than it was charged for. The defendant-board took the stand that the meter installed at the premises of the plaintiff-appellant firm was not working properly and on checking it was found that it was slow to the extent of 66.7% and accordingly, the additional demand of Rs. 10142.40 for the month of September 1976 to May 1977 was raised. Both the Courts below have returned categorical finding that the plaintiff-appellant has admitted its liability and had also made part payment out of the disputed amount. The basis of the finding is that when DW-2 Sh. A.K. Jain, S.D.O. of the Board appeared as a witness, he had deposed that plaintiff-appellant had agreed with the proposal for payment of charges assessed on average basis and there was no cross- examination of that witness in respect of his statement. DW-2 Sh. R. Dhawan, Assistant Engineer of the Board on the basis of the record of the meter checking had deposed that meter was running slow by 66.7%. The views of the learned Additional District Judge with regard to various findings read as under :- "The evidence led by the plaintiff does not prove its case that the amount in question has been wrongly added as electricity consumption charges and, therefore, the plaintiff is not liable to pay the same as claimed by the defendant. The views of the learned Additional District Judge with regard to various findings read as under :- "The evidence led by the plaintiff does not prove its case that the amount in question has been wrongly added as electricity consumption charges and, therefore, the plaintiff is not liable to pay the same as claimed by the defendant. On the other hand, the statement of DW2 A.K. Jain, SDO, Haryana State Electricity Board throws a lot of light on the matter in dispute. He has stated that the matter of account No. MS/9 was checked by the M and P Department, Faridabad. This account No. i.e. MS/9 is admittedly that of the plaintiff. This witness has further stated that it was reported after checking that the said meter was functioning slow by 66.7 percent. DW2 has gone on to state that the average amount in respect of slow functioning of the meter was Rs. 7439.04, which was in respect of September 1976 to May 1977. Entry of the said amount was made in the ledger for the month of August, 1977. The total amount of bill for August 1977 was Rs. 9437.68. According to the DW2, the consumer agreed with this bill and made part payment of Rs. 1998.64. Balance of the amount due from the consumer was carried forward in the month of September, 1977 and again part payment of Rs. 2413.94 was made. This showed that the consumer i.e. the plaintiff had agreed with the average charged in the month of August, 1977. Amount of Rs. 7553.49 was not carried forward in the month of September, 1977. During the month of August, 1978, there was mistake in calculation of 10,000 units which were charged in December, 1978 amounting to Rs. 2322.66. The total consumption of electricity units was 17932 whereas by clerical mistake it was written as 7932 units. In his cross-examination, it has not been suggested to DW2 at all that the plaintiff did not agree with the bill of August, 1977 nor made part payment thereof on two occasions, as deposed by him in his examination-in-chief. In these circumstances, the detailed testimony of a responsible official of the defendant-electricity Board cannot be discarded and has to be believed. This is all the more so because the plaintiff has failed to prove that it is not liable to pay the amount of Rs. In these circumstances, the detailed testimony of a responsible official of the defendant-electricity Board cannot be discarded and has to be believed. This is all the more so because the plaintiff has failed to prove that it is not liable to pay the amount of Rs. 10142.40 the demand for which has led to the filing of the present suit. Moreover, the plaintiff has not led any evidence in rebuttal to the testimony of DW2 discussed above." 2. Mr. Alok Jain, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has argued that the demand raised by the defendant-Board is absolutely unwarranted and illegal. The learned counsel has placed reliance on sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for brevity the Act) to argue that the question of defective meter has to be decided by an Electrical Inspector. The learned counsel has further submitted that according to sub- section (6) of Section 26 of the period for which demand could be raised on account of defective meter can not to exceed six months. 3. Mr. S.K. Vashisht, learned counsel for the respondent-Board has pointed out that there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below and the arguments sought to be raised now for the first time on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant cannot be entertained on account of the fact that no such case was built in the pleadings or in any of the two courts below. According to the learned counsel such an argument cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time because no factual foundation is available on the record. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below make it evident that the plaintiff-appellant has agreed to the payment of the disputed bill on average basis and it had made partial payment also. On this vital issue, statement made by DW-2 Sh. A.K. Jain has been accepted by the plaintiff-appellant as there is no cross-examination conducted on this part of the statement made by him. The findings of facts have been recorded on that basis and would not call for interference under Section 100 of the Code. On this vital issue, statement made by DW-2 Sh. A.K. Jain has been accepted by the plaintiff-appellant as there is no cross-examination conducted on this part of the statement made by him. The findings of facts have been recorded on that basis and would not call for interference under Section 100 of the Code. Even otherwise the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments has repeatedly held that the findings of facts cannot be touched by this Court under Section 100 unless it is concluded that those findings are without evidence or it is shown that a reasonable man would not be able to record those findings on the basis of available evidence. Such is not the situation in the instant case. Reference may be made to the cases of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams v. K.M. Krishnaiah, (1998) 3 SCC 331; Satya Gupta v. Brijesh Kumar, (1998) 6 SCC 423 : Chandrabhagabai v. Ramakrishna and others, (1998) 6 SCC 207; Ram Prasad Rajak v. Nand Kumar and Bros. and another, (1998) 6 SCC 748; M.G. Hegde and others v. Vasudev, (2000) 2 SCC 213, State of Rajasthan v. Harphool Singh (dead) through L.Rs., (2000) 5 SCC 652; M. Nadar Kesavan Nadar v. Narayanan Nadar Kunjan Nadar, (2000) 10 SCC 244; Baidyanath Bhattacharya v. S. Karmakar, (2000) 9 SCC 505; Manorama Thampuratti v. C.K. Sujatha Thampuratti, (2000) 9 SCC 233; Chandragouda and another v. Shekharagouda S. Pittanagoudar, (2000) 10 SCC 617; Thimmaiah and others v. Ningamma and another, (2000) 7 SCC 409 : ; Mohd. Abdul Muqtedar v. Sk. Fakruddin, (2000) 9 SCC 384; G. Thankamma Amma v. N. Raghava Kurup, (2000) 9 SCC 517; Ananta Kalappa Jaratakhane v. Krishtappa, (2000) 9 SCC 735; Kempaiah v. Doddanaraiah, (2000) 9 SCC 60; Mohd. Hadi Hussain v. Abdul Hamid Choudhary, (2000) 10 SCC 248 and Ajit Chopra v. Sadhu Ram, (2000) 1 SCC 114 . 5. The argument of the learned counsel based on sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Act would also not require any detailed consideration for the reason that no such case has been built in the pleadings or during the course of evidence or in the argument before the Courts below. Sh. 5. The argument of the learned counsel based on sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Act would also not require any detailed consideration for the reason that no such case has been built in the pleadings or during the course of evidence or in the argument before the Courts below. Sh. A.K. Jain, S.D.O. (DW-2) has made categorical statement and nothing has been put to him that the checking staff of the meter was not clothed with the power of the Electrical Inspector under sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Act nor any question was raised either in the pleadings or at any other stage that the demand could not been raised only for a period of six months. The argument concerning period of six months is also mitigated by virtue of findings recorded by both the Courts below that the plaintiff-appellant has agreed to make the payment of the disputed bill and has in fact part payments were made. Therefore, there is no substance in the aforementioned argument raised by the learned counsel. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.