JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal filed under section 100 of C.P.C. is against the judgment and decree dated 22.3.2007 passed by Addl. District Judge, Parbatsar in Civil Appeal No. 9/2000 whereby the Appellate Court has upheld the judgment and decree dated 7.4.2000 passed by Civil Judge (JD), Nava City in Civil Original Suit No. 11 /95 by which the suit filed for injunction by the respondents was decreed in his favour. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the recovery order passed by the defendants-appellants before the Trial Court and it was prayed that the bill issued in the month of January, 1995 whereby the recovery of Rs. 4,20,958/- has been sent is illegal because the said amount is related to the period commencing from January, 1992 to September, 1993 and for that period the electricity bill sent by the defendant-appellants was regularly paid but now for the said period as per the defendants-appellants, the proper reading was not made, therefore, bill for recovery was sent. 3. Learned Trial Court after framing five issues held that no documentary evidence has been filed for the said recovery and the reason which is given by the defendants-appellants before the Trial Court that due to ill-sightedness of the meter-reader, proper bill was not because proper reading was not recorded by him. Learned Trial Court after framing issues and granting opportunity to lead evidence to both the parties decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and held that defendants-appellants are not entitled to recover Rs. 4.18,662.30 paisa because no evidence has been produced before the Court to substantiate the said recovery. The only reason was given that due to ill-sightedness, the meter reader did not record the proper meter reading for the period commencing from January, 1992 to September, 1993. 4. The aforesaid judgment and decree dated 7.4.2000 passed by Trial Court was challenged by the defendants-appellants by way of filing appeal whereby the judgment and decree dated 7.4.2000 was upheld by Appellate Court. 5. In this second appeal, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the finding of Trial Court was erroneous on all the issues, so also the suit was not maintainable in view of the fact that alternative remedy before the settlement committee was available. 5. In this second appeal, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the finding of Trial Court was erroneous on all the issues, so also the suit was not maintainable in view of the fact that alternative remedy before the settlement committee was available. Secondly, learned Counsel for the appellant argued that electricity bill for recovery for the period commencing from January, 1992 to September, 1993 was sent on the ground that as per record, the meter reader of the relevant time not recorded the correct reading of the electricity consumption but learned Civil Court committed an error while holding that no specific evidence has been produced by the defendants-appellants to prove their case that there was human error more so the recovery of the bill commencing from January, 1992 to September, 1993 was sent in the month of January, 1995, that too, without any order by the competent authority, so also no documentary evidence like audit report or other documents was produced on record to prove the dues. The said finding is erroneous because it is only meter reader who can record the reading of meter but he had committed an error, therefore, learned Trial Court ought to have considered this matter but rejected the said evidence, therefore, the judgment and decree though was passed by learned Court was illegal but learned Appellate Court has erroneously upheld the said judgment and decree. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellants further argued that the required Court fee for the amount of Rs. 4,18,662.30 paisa was not paid and suit was filed upon Rs. 30 Court fee, that too, is illegal and this point was raised before the Trial Court but Trial Court has committed an error while rejecting the appellants' ground with regard to deficiency of Court fee. Both the Courts below have committed an error while discarding the evidence produced by the defendants-appellants, so also have wrongly shifted burden to prove the recovery upon the defendants-appellants, therefore, the finding of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court is perverse, hence very important question of law is involved :n this case. 7. Both the Courts below have committed an error while discarding the evidence produced by the defendants-appellants, so also have wrongly shifted burden to prove the recovery upon the defendants-appellants, therefore, the finding of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court is perverse, hence very important question of law is involved :n this case. 7. With regard to draw presumption for not furnishing documentary evidence by the plaintiff-respondent, learned Counsel for the respondent has invited my attention towards the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif and others, AIR 1968 SC 1418 in which it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that a party in possession of best evidence which would throw light on issue in the controversy withholding the evidence then Court ought to draw an adverse inference against him notwithstanding that onus of proof does not lie on him. The party cannot rely on abstract doctrine of onus of proof or on the fact that he was not called upon to produce it. In this view of the matter also, when defendants-appellants were of the opinion that amount of electricity consumption for the period commencing from January, 1992 to September, 1993 is to be recovered then it was the duty of the defendants-appellants to produce the evidence which is obviously left with them because their employees are required to maintain the accounts of meter reading, if any error is committed by their employees then that cannot be shifted upon the consumer. 8. I have perused the both the judgment passed Courts below. In my opinion, the whole basis for sending bill for recovery of amount for the period commencing from January, 1992 to September, 1993 was an error committed by the meter reader and admittedly no evidence was produced by the defendants-appellants before the Trial Court to prove the case for recovery of said amount. Learned Trial Court has rightly shifted burden to prove the recovery upon the defendants-appellants because the recovery bill was sent by the defendants-appellants against the plaintiff-respondent, therefore, it was to be proved by the defendants-appellants that recovery is proper but in absence of any documentary evidence, the Trial Court gave its finding that recovery bill is not proper and the said amount cannot be recovered from the plaintiff-respondent. In my opinion, the finding of fact does not require any interference by this Court while entertaining the second appeal under section 100 of C.P.C. Admittedly, no reasonable ground was raised before the Trial Court for effecting recovery against plaintiff-respondent, therefore, there is no error in the finding given by the Trial Court with regard to issue No. 4. It is not disputed by the defendants-appellants that plaintiff-respondent was not depositing the amount of electricity bill regularly. The only question was raised that there was alternative remedy before the settlement committee but in fact the notification for constitution of settlement committee was issued on 8.4.1996 whereas the recovery bill was sent to the plaintiff-.respondent in the month of January, 1993 and therefore, in the year 1995, only remedy was available with the plaintiff-respondent to file suit, therefore, the Trial Court has rightly decided this issue in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Similarly, the objection with regard to deficiency of Court fee was also rightly decided by the Trial Court because the suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff-appellants not to give effect to the bill of recovery on the ground that the said amount was due due to error of meter reader. In this view of the matter when the plaintiff is not claiming any amount and challenging the bill then obviously he was not required to pay Court fee upon the amount of recovery raised against the plaintiff-respondent by the defendants-appellants. 9. In this view of the matter, the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court with regard to maintainability of the suit and proper Court fee so also not producing proper evidence to prove the case does not require any interference because there is no perversity or illegality committed by Courts below. Hence, there is no force in this second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order as to cost.Appeal dismissed. *******