JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal by the M.P. Electricity Board (presently MPSEB), against the judgment and decree dated 11.8.1989 passed by the 1 Additional District Judge, dismissing thereby the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for recovery of Rs. 59,282.64. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the defendants entered into an agreement with the Electricity Board on 23.10.1974 for supply of electricity. The agreement was made effective on expiry of three months notice which was liable to be issued after the availability of supply of electricity, According to the plaintiff, a notice was issued on 1.4. 1975 informing that the electricity was made available. The defendants did not avail the electricity. So, as per clause 2 of the agreement, the defendants were liable to pay the monthly minimum charges. The bills were also raised on the defendants with effect from July, 1975 and the same were issued every month. The defendants did not pay the amount of minimum charges. Accordingly, a suit has been instituted for minimum charges for the period from July, 1975 to May, 1978 which came to Rs. 59.282.64. 3. The defendant in its written statement submitted that its partners have entered into an agreement on 23.10.1974. However, it is contended that requisite notice about availability of electric supply was not given. The defendants have admitted to have received the bills for the minimum charges but they contended that they submitted objections on 8.10. 1975 and have thus denied the liability. The defendants have also stated that the agreement was executed at Neemuch and the Court at Jabalpur has no jll1isdiction. The defendant has further stated that since it has not consumed the electricity and no notice was served upon it, it is not liable to pay even the minimum charges. 4. The learned trial Judge after recording the evidence, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the notice of the availability of electricity is not proved to have been served. The question of jurisdiction was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by this judgement and decree the plaintiff-appellant has preferred the present appeal. 5. I have heard the submissions made by learned senior counsel Shri M.L. Jaiswal and Shri Alok Aradhe and have considered them in the light of the material available on record. 6. The question of jurisdiction was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by this judgement and decree the plaintiff-appellant has preferred the present appeal. 5. I have heard the submissions made by learned senior counsel Shri M.L. Jaiswal and Shri Alok Aradhe and have considered them in the light of the material available on record. 6. It contended by Shri Jaiswal, learned senior counsel that the M.P. Electricity Board has a right to recover the minimum charges after making available the electricity and after serving the customer with the notice of availability of Electricity. He submitted that the notice has been proved to have been served in due manner and the defendant-respondent is liable to pay the minimum charges in accordance with contract. 7. Shri Alok Aradhe, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the notice is not proved to have been served as rightly held by the learned trial Judge and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. He further contended that in view of law laid down by the apex Court in Madhusudan Das v. Smt. Nearyani Bai and others. [1983 JU 131 = AIR 1983 SC 114 ], the findings of the learned trial Judge are liable to be maintained. He taking the reliance from 1959 MPU 448, further contended that even if another view is possible, the appellate Court is not free to take the other view unless the approach of the learned trial Judge is illegal and palpably wrong. 8. As regards the law laid down by the apex Court in Madhusudan Das case (supra), it is observed that the said authority applies when there is a conflict of oral evidence on any matter in issue and its resolution turns upon the creditability of the witnesses. In the present case, the notice and various documents are on record which are liable to be taken into consideration more so, in the light of section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act for determining the question of service of notice. So, the authority of the apex Court (supra) does not get attracted. As regards the reliance on 1959 MPLJ 448 , it is also of no avail because the view taken by the learned trial Judge does not appear to be correct in the light of the material on record as well as the law governing the situation. The detailed reasons are stated herein below. . 9. As regards the reliance on 1959 MPLJ 448 , it is also of no avail because the view taken by the learned trial Judge does not appear to be correct in the light of the material on record as well as the law governing the situation. The detailed reasons are stated herein below. . 9. Shri M.L. Jaiswal, learned senior counsel submitted that the right of M.P. Electricity. Board to recover the minimum charges has already been upheld by the Supreme Court of India in Bihar State Electricity Board v. Green Rubber Industries and others [ AIR 1990 SC 699 ]. While dealing with an agreement by the Electricity Board containing stipulation to pay the minimum guaranteed charges, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 21 of its judgment- "It is settled law that a person who signs a document which contains contractural terms is normally bound by them even though he has not read them, even though he is ignorant of the precise legal effect. In view of clause 4 having formed one of the stipulations in the contract along with others it cannot be said to be nudam pactum and the maxim nudum pactum ex quo non oritur actio does not apply. Considered by the test of reasonableness, it cannot be said to be unreasonable inasmuch as the supply of electricity to a consumer involves incurring of overhead installation expenses by the Board which do not vary with the quantity of electricity consumed and the installation has to be continued irrespective of whether the energy is consumed or not until the agreement comes to an end. Every contract is to be considered with reference to its object and the whole of its terms and accordingly the whole context must be considered in endeavouring to collect the intention of the parties, even though the immediate objection of enquiry is the meaning of an isolated clause. This agreement with the stipulation of minimum guaranteed charges cannot be held to be ultravires on the ground that it is incompatible with the statutory duty." The decision (supra) has been further followed by the apex Court in General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board and other v. Rajeshwar Singh, reported as AIR 1990 SC 706 . This agreement with the stipulation of minimum guaranteed charges cannot be held to be ultravires on the ground that it is incompatible with the statutory duty." The decision (supra) has been further followed by the apex Court in General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board and other v. Rajeshwar Singh, reported as AIR 1990 SC 706 . In view of the aforesaid binding authorities, the plaintiff-appellant is found to be entitled to recover the minimum charges from the defendant-respondent provided the notice contemplated by clause (2) (a) of the agreement marked as Ex. P-l is duly served upon the consumer. (i.e. the defendant-respondent). 10. The next question coming up for consideration is whether the notice as required by the agreement was duly served upon the defendant or not. In paragraph 2 of the plaint, it is pleaded that, in pursuance to the agreement the electricity lines were laid by the Board and on completion of formalities, 3 months' notice of availability of supply was given to the defendants on 1.4.1975 as per clause 2 of the agreement. Learned senior counsel Shri M.L. Jaiswal, in view of the same submitted that the defendant after due notice of availability of supply has made itself liable to pay the minimum charges with effect from July 1975, during the contract of five years. It is expressly pleaded in paragraph 3 of the plaint that the bills for the period from July 1975 were raised and issued to the defendant. According to him, total charges liable to be paid as minimum charges by the defendant-respondent come to Rs. 59,282.64. The defendant respondent has submitted in paragraph 2 of the written statement that the Electricity Board did erect a few poles to meet the demand of defendants. The main defence of the defendant-respondent is that 3 months' notice of availability of supply was not served upon the defendant-respondent. The defendant has further contended that he did not avail the electricity and in the absence of service of notice of availability of supply, the defendant respondent is not liable to pay even the minimum charges. The plaintiff Board has examined R.K. Shukla, Divisional Engineer as PW1, who has stated on oath that the notice of availability of supply was issued on 1.4.1979. He has stated that the notice could not be served. He further submitted that the notice contained in the envelopes as Ex. The plaintiff Board has examined R.K. Shukla, Divisional Engineer as PW1, who has stated on oath that the notice of availability of supply was issued on 1.4.1979. He has stated that the notice could not be served. He further submitted that the notice contained in the envelopes as Ex. P-2A also could not be served. Again the notice sent by registered post which is stated to be contained in the envelope. Ex. P-2 too, could not be served, the witness further stated that the service of notice Ex. P-4 & P-5 was effected through affixation on the residential address of Laxmi Bhawan and on the factory premises respectively. The service of notice through affixation has been established by the M.P. Electricity Board by examining its employee Mohan Das as CPW 2 and by examining the independent witness Jujhar Singh as CPW 1. In view of the aforesaid, Shri M.L. Jaiswal, learned counsel submitted that the notice required under clause 2(a) of the agreement Ex. P-l is proved to have been served and the learned trial Judge has committed an illegality in holding contrary. 11. In reply Shri Alok Aradhe, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is an overwriting on Ex. P-4 and Ex. P-5 and the same cannot be relied on for giving a finding about service of notice on the defendant-respondent. He submitted that there are discrepancies in the statements of CPW 1 and CPW 2 and the learned trial Judge taking them into consideration has lightly held that the notice of availability of supply is not proved to have been served. He further contended that non-examination of Ratanlal is fatal to the appellant's claim to recover the minimum charges because he was a witness to the Panchnama contained in Ex. P-5. 12. Before arriving at a finding, it is important to see whether the Indian Electricity Act 1910 contains a provision about service of notice required under the said Act. Section 53 of the said Act is relevant in the matter which reproduced below: "53. Service of notice, order or documents -- (1) Every notice, order or document by or under this Act required or authorized to be addressed to any person may be served by post or left, -(a) Where the Central Government or the (State Government) is the addressee at the office of (such officer as the Central Government or the (State Government). Service of notice, order or documents -- (1) Every notice, order or document by or under this Act required or authorized to be addressed to any person may be served by post or left, -(a) Where the Central Government or the (State Government) is the addressee at the office of (such officer as the Central Government or the (State Government). as the case may be, may designate in this behalf); (* * * * * * * * *) (b) Where a local authority is the addressee, at the office of the local authority; (c) Where a company is the addressee at the registered office of the company or, in the event of the registered office of the company not being in India, at the head office of the company in India: (d) Where any other person is the addressee, at the usual or last known place of abode or business of the person. (2) Every notice, order or document by or under this Act required or authorized to be addressed to the owner or occupier of any premises shall be deemed to be properly addressed if addressed by the description of the 'owner' or 'occupier' of the premises (naming the premises), and may be served by delivering it, or a true copy thereof to some person on the premises or, if there is no person on the premises to whom the same can with reasonable diligence be delivered, by affixing it on some conspicuous part of the premises." 13. A perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the service of notice required to be made for the purpose of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 may be effected through post or may be effected by leaving the notice at the registered address of the company or at the place of abode or business of the consumer. This includes the service of notice by affixation at the registered address of the company or at the place of abode or business of the consumer. 14. A perusal of the record shows that the notice was earlier sent by registered post which came back unserved without due service. It is not the contention of the defendant-respondent that the notices were not issued at the Correct address. 14. A perusal of the record shows that the notice was earlier sent by registered post which came back unserved without due service. It is not the contention of the defendant-respondent that the notices were not issued at the Correct address. Since the notice issued through registered post came back unserved, it was open to the Board to take resort to section 53 of the Indian Electricity Act, and to effect the service by leaving the notice at the registered address of the defendant or at the place of abode or business of the defendant. It is not the intention of the legislature to go on attempting service on consumer under a mode which was not viable. The mode of service through affixation could have been resorted to after the failure of service of notice through registered post as held by this Court in Laxmi Bai v. Girdharilal reported in 1973 JLJ Short note 95. 15. The plaintiff-appellant has examined Mohandas as PW.2 who happened to be a peon in the office of M.P. Electricity Board. He has stated on oath that the notice was affixed on the wall of the premises of Laxmi Iron Industries and also on the residential house of the defendant known as Laxmi Bhawan. He has further stated that he has put his signature on the panchmana Ex. P-4 and P-S. According to him the notice was affixed on the factory wall in the presence of two witnesses including Jujhar Singh. Jujhar Singh was also examined on commission as CPW I who has supported the theory of a fixture of notice. 16. Contrary to this it is important to note that the defendant Harjit Singh who has been examined as a partner of the defendant's firm has no where denied the theory of affixture of notice. He has merely stated in para-1 of his statement that the M.P. Electricity Board did not serve him with a notice in pursuance of the agreement. There is no denial in the statement that the affixation of notice as established by the plaintiff was not made. He has no where stated in his statement that the Panchnama contained in Ex.P-4 and P-S were in the nature of paper proceedings and the notice of availability of electricity was not affixed on the factory premises or at the residential house. 17. He has no where stated in his statement that the Panchnama contained in Ex.P-4 and P-S were in the nature of paper proceedings and the notice of availability of electricity was not affixed on the factory premises or at the residential house. 17. Considering the aforesaid with regard to the service of notice and further considering the documents Ex. P-2 to P-S, I am of the considered opinion that the notice contemplated by Clause 2(a) of Ex. P-l is proved to have been served. One more important aspect of the case is that the bills for the minimum guarantee period were raised against the defendant respondent which were received by it. The defendant-respondent on receiving such bills did not raise objection at any point of time, that it was not served with the notice of availability of supply of electricity. The learned counsel for the defendant-respondent further submitted that the notice could not have been issued before installation of metering equipments and a note to this extent was put/made on Ex. D-l. However, the learned counsel for the respondent has been unable to show any provision where under the notice contemplated by clause 2(a) of Ex. P-l is liable to be issued only after installation of metering equipments. Moreover, the Divisional Engineer of the Electricity Board appearing as PW 1, has clearly stated in his statement that after laying down of the, electrical lines a notice of availability of supply is issued and after completion of installation, test report, etc. on the part of the consumer a meter is installed. He has further stated that unless the factory becomes fully functional, the meter and other equipments cannot be provided for want of safety and security. 18. Accordingly, it is found that the notice contemplated under clause (2) (a) of Ex. P- L, was rightly issued when the electricity was made available to the defendant-respondent for its consumption. The failure of defendant-respondent to consume the electricity is not relevant for deciding the entitlement of the Electricity Board to recover the minimum guaranteed charges. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I hold that the notice contemplated in clause 2(a) of Ex. P-l was duly served upon the defendant respondent and the discrepancies mentioned by the learned trial Judge are of the trivial nature and insufficient to lead to contrary conclusions. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I hold that the notice contemplated in clause 2(a) of Ex. P-l was duly served upon the defendant respondent and the discrepancies mentioned by the learned trial Judge are of the trivial nature and insufficient to lead to contrary conclusions. Similarly, the service of notice through affixation having been proved as aforesaid, non-examination of Ratanlal is of no avail. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the minimum guarantee charges as claimed by the Electricity Board. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the judgement and decree of the trial Court are hereby set aside. The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed. The defendant-respondent is found liable to pay the minimum guarantee charges as claimed by the plaintiff-appellant and is hereby directed to pay the same to the plaintiff-appellant. No order as to cost. Decree be prepared accordingly. .....................