Judgment 1. The defendants Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others have concurrently lost before the two Courts below and have approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal. A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff baldev Singh for restraining the defendants from disconnecting the electricity connection installed in his premises. The defendants contested the suit and took up the plea that a checking had been conducted in the premises of the plaintiff and the seals of the electricity meter were found to be tampered. The defendants also claimed that they had sent the aforesaid meter to the laboratory at Yamuna Nagar and it was found that the meter was tampered. 2. Both the Courts below have concurrently found it is a fact that the defendants had failed to prove that there was any theft of electricity. It has also been found that the documents sought to be relied upon by the defendants were not proved at all in accordance with law. A reliance was specifically placed upon the judgment of the HON BLE Supreme Court in the case of Jagarnath Singh V/s. H. Krishna Murthy and another AIR 1967 SC 947 to hold that mere tampering of meter could not be treated to be theft of energy. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed and the appeal filed by the defendants failed before the learned First Appellate court. 3. Shri Rohit Ahuja, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has argued that during the course of first appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been filed for leading additional evidence. The defendants wanted to examine two witnesses to prove the documents on record. According to the learned counsel, the said application has not been decided, therefore, the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court cannot be sustained. 4. I have duly considered the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellants but find myself unable to agree with the same. Even if it is taken that the application for additional evidence filed by the defendants has remained undecided before the learned First Appellate Court, still the same would not improve the case of the defendants at all. 5. The defendants had specifically maintained that there was a theft of electricity. The aforesaid allegation could not be proved by them. Even if it is taken that the application for additional evidence filed by the defendants has remained undecided before the learned First Appellate Court, still the same would not improve the case of the defendants at all. 5. The defendants had specifically maintained that there was a theft of electricity. The aforesaid allegation could not be proved by them. Even if it is taken that the defendants were able to prove that the meter in question was found to be tampered, still the same would not lead to any presumption of theft of electricity as held by the HON BLE Supreme Court of India in Jagarnath Singhs case (supra ). The additional evidence sought to be led by the defendants would not have improved the case of the defendants in any manner. 6. It is not the case of the defendants that at any point of time any fact finding enquiry was held by them to hold that there was a theft of electricity by the plaintiff. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal. Dismissed.