Judgment VINEY MITTAL, J. 1. For the reasons stated in the application the delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The plaintiff has lost concurrently before the two Courts below in a suit for declaration. He challenged the notice dated August 5, 1997 issued by the defendants- Haryana State Electricity Board and others, whereby a recovery of rs.7035/- was imposed upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that the aforesaid recovery was totally illegal and he was made to pay the aforesaid amount under threat of disconnection. 3. Both the Courts below have concurrently found it as a fact that on inspection of the premises of the plaintiff it was detected that the plaintiff was indulging in theft of energy. In view of the aforesaid fact, it has been found that a penalty was imposed by the Department on the request of the plaintiff and the plaintiff had voluntarily paid the amount of penalty. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and his appeal failed before the learned first appellate Court. 4. Mr. J. S. Yadav, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffappellant has argued that the amount of penalty was paid by the plaintiff under the threat of disconnection, and therefore, the said fact could not be taken against him. 5. It has further been argued by the learned Court that the Junior Engineer of the department was not competent to check the premises. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any justification in either of the contentions of the learned counsel. It is not in dispute that the amount imposed as penalty had been paid by the plaintiff. It has also admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that at the time of making the payment, no protest was ever lodged. In these circumstances, the bald statement of the plaintiff that the aforesaid amount had been paid under the threat of disconnection can not be accepted. Additionally, a finding of fact has been recorded by both the Courts below that the plaintiff was found indulging in theft of energy. In view of the aforesaid fact, the mere technical plea raised by the plaintiff cannot be accepted. 7. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record. In view of the aforesaid fact, the mere technical plea raised by the plaintiff cannot be accepted. 7. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.