JUDGMENT 1. - On 14.2.1989, the following substantial questions of law were framed for determination in this appeal : (i) Whether the suit was entertainable without depositing the amount of demand U/s. 5 of the Rajasthan State Electricity Recovery Act? (ii) Whether the suit was entertainable without availing the opportunity provided under the Indian Electricity Act and General conditions of supply? 2. Notice was issued to the respondents (plaintiffs), but despite service of notice, nobody appears for the respondents. 3. Brief facts may be noticed first by me before I consider the afore-noticed two questions. The plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction against the present respondents (defendants) that the defendants be restrained from disconnecting the electric connection given to them vide connection s No. 24.3.163 and from recovering the amount of Rs. 7015.90 paise. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they had paid the electricity bills issued upto the month of January, 1975. On 12th February, 1975, the plaintiffs received electricity bill for the month of February, 1975 demanding a sum of Rs. 8,981.52 including meter rert of Rs. 1.50/-. The plaintiffs o took up the matter with the defendants as the amount reflected in the bill dated 12.2.1975 was not due. Thereafter on 17.3.1975 another bill was issued by the defendants demanding a sum of Rs. 7698.30. The said amount included the amount of Rs. 682.40 for the consumption of electricity in the months of February and March, 1975. The plaintiffs' 5 case is that after excluding a sum of Rs. 682.40/-, the demand of Rs. 7015.90 paise is wholly unjustified as the said amount is not due and payable. 4. The defendants filed the written statement and traversed the case set up by the plaintiffs. Inter-alia, the defendants raised the objection that the suit o filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable under the Indian Electricity Act. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed diverse issues. Issue No. 9 framed by the trial court was : "The suit was filed by the plaintiffs could be maintained without raising any dispute contemplated under Indian Electricity Act." 6. The Trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit on 18.11.1978. 7. Aggrieved thereby the present respondents preferred appeal, which came to be dismissed by Addl. District Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur on 1.5.1989. The Trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit on 18.11.1978. 7. Aggrieved thereby the present respondents preferred appeal, which came to be dismissed by Addl. District Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur on 1.5.1989. The appeal Court sustained the judgment and decree of the trial court. 8. As the controversy is limited to the maintainability of the suit filed by the plaintiffs. I may straight away refer to Section 5 of the Rajasthan Government Electrical Undertakings (Dues Recovery) Act, 1960, which provides if a consumer denies his liability to pay the dues pursuant to the notice of demand, he must deposit the amount so demanded in protest before instituting the suit and then such suit may be instituted within six months from the date of deposit. 9. Section 5 of the Act of 1960 reads thus : "5. Suit to challenge liability to payment.- (1) Where a notice of demand has been served on the debtor or his authorised agent under Section 4, he may, if he denies his liability to pay the dues, penalty or costs or any part of any of them institute a suit after depositing with the prescribed authority the aggregate amount specified in the notice of demand under protest in writing for the refund of the same. (2) A suit referred to in sub-section (1) may be instituted in a civil court of competent jurisdiction at any time within six months from the date of deposit with the prescribed authority and subject to the result of such suit, the notice of demand shall be conclusive proof of the various dues, penalty and costs mentioned therein." 10. Besides that, I may notice here Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 referred to by the counsel for the appellants. The said provision reads thus : "26. Meters.-(1) in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the amount of energy supplied to a consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply shall be ascertained by means of a correct meter, and the licensee shall, if required by the consumer, cause the consumer to be supplied with such a meter : Provided that the licensee may require the consumer to give him security for the price of a meter and enter into an agreement for the hire thereof, unless the consumer elects to purchase a meter. (2) Where the consumer so enters into an agreement for the hire of a meter, the licensee shall keep the meter correct, and, in default of his doing so, the consumer shall, for so long as the default continues, cease to be liable to pay for the hire of the meter. (3) Where the meter is the property of the consumer, he shall keep the meter correct, and, in default of his doing so, the licensee may, after giving him seven days' notice, for so long as the default continues, cease to supply energy through the meter. (4) The licensee or any person duly authorised by the licensee shall, at any reasonable time and on informing the consumer of his intention, have access to, and be at liberty to inspect and test, and for that purpose, if he thinks fit, take off and remove, any meter referred to in sub-section (1); and, except where the meter is so hired as aforesaid, all reasonable expenses of, and incidental to, such inspecting, testing, taking off and removing shall, if the meter is found to be otherwise than correct, be recovered from the consumer; and, where any difference or dispute arises as to the amount of such reasonable expenses, the matter shall be referred to an Electrical Inspector, and the decision of such Inspector shall be final : Provided that the licensee shall not be at liberty to take off or remove any such meter if any difference or dispute of the nature described in sub-section (6) has arisen until the matter has been determined as therein provided. (5) A consumer shall not connect any meter referred to in sub-section (1) with any electric supply- line through which energy is supplied by a licensee, or disconnect the same from any such electric supply-line, [but he may by giving not less than forty-eight hours' notice in writing to the licensee require the licensee to connect or disconnect such meter and on receipt of any such requisition the licensee shall comply with it within the period of the notice]. (6) Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in sub-section (1) is or is not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector, and where the meter has, in the opinion of such Inspector ceased to be correct, such Inspector shall estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during such time, not exceeding six months, as the meter shall, in the opinion of such Inspector, have been correct; but save as aforesaid, the register of the meter shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of such amount or quantity; Provided that before either a licensee or a consumer applies to the Electrical Inspector under this sub-section, he shall give to the other party not less than seven days' notice of his intention so to do.] (7) In addition to any meter which may be placed upon the premises of a consumer in pursuance of the provisions of sub-section (1), the licensee may place upon such premises such meter, maximum demand indicator or other apparatus as he may think fit for the purpose of ascertaining or regulating either the amount of energy supplied to the consumer, or the number of hours during which the supply is given, or the rate per unit of time at which energy is supplied to the consumer, or any other quantity or time connected with the supply; Provided that the meter, indicator or apparatus shall not, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, be placed other wise than between the distributing mains of the licensee and any meter referred to in sub-section (1) ; Provided also, that, where the charges for the supply of energy depend wholly or partly upon the reading or indication of any such meter, indicator or apparatus as aforesaid, the licensee shall, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, keep the meter, indicator or apparatus correct; and the provisions of sub-section (4), (5) and (6) shall in that case apply as though the meter, indicator or apparatus were a meter referred to in sub-section (1)." Sub-section (6) thereto clearly provides where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter is correct or not, the matter shall be decided by an Electrical Inspector. 11. 11. In the case of Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Ashwani Kumar, 1997(5) SCC 120 , the Supreme Court was concerned with almost an identical situation, wherein a consumer filed a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the Punjab State Electricity Board or it's officers from collecting and recovering the amount from the consumer. The trial court granted the decree in favour of the consumer which was confirmed in part by the Appellate Court and second appeal therefrom was dismissed from Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Supreme Court considered the provisions of Indian Electricity Act, the Electricity (Supply) Act and the instructions issued by the Punjab State Electricity Board from time to time and held that the suit before the Civil Court was barred by necessary implication. 12. When the law provides a particular procedure to be followed before institution of the suit, obviously compliance of such procedure has to be seen before the suit is entertained. The language of Section 5 of the Act of 1960 admits of no ambiguity as it requires a consumer, who denies his liability to pay dues as demanded, to deposit the amount demanded in protest and then institute the suit within six months of such deposit. 13. In what has been discussed above, I hold that the suit ought not to have entertained by the Trial Court for non compliance of Section 5 of the Act of 1960. This answers first substantial question of law. The second substantial question of law does not need to be answered in view of my answer to first substantial question of law. 14. Consequently, the second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by Addl. District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur on 1.5.1989 and the judgment and decree passed by the Addl. Civil Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur on 18.11.1978 are set-aside. The plaintiff's suit stand dismissed. Since the respondents have failed to appear, I award no cost.Appeal allowed. *******