JUDGMENT : S.K. Kulshrcstha, J. (President):- The complainant assails by this appeal the order dated 29-9-2010 passed by the District Forum, Sehore in Case No. 164/2010. It is not disputed that while the appellant was the owner and in possession of the land, she had an agriculture connection of 5 HP which was along with the land transferred on 9-8-2007 to Smt. Saurabh Bai w/o Shri Amar Singh and Smt. Leela Bai w/o Shri Mangilal of Village Kothari by a registered sale deed. The appellant contends that information with regard to the sale of the premises where the connection was installed, had been duly given to the Electricity Company and no electricity was used from 9-8-2007 but, still the Electricity Company gave a bill dated 28-2-2010 in the sum of Rs. 75,563/-. 2. The opposite party resisted the claim of the appellant and urged that the complainant had not deposited any amount after 2004 and the bill issued to him does not suffer from any defect. The District Forum observed that the appellant had not given any receipt to show that she had paid the dues of electricity and nothing was outstanding against her. Though she produced a photocopy of the sale deed evidencing sale of the land which shows the alienation of the property on 9-8-2007 but, no receipt was filed to show that prior to sale deed she had cleared the dues. The opposite party has given the billing details in which after giving all rebates the amount comes to Rs. 79,927/-. Thus, there is no ground to believe that the amount is not outstanding against the appellant. 3. We have examined the question of liability and the extent to which the appellant is required to pay the amount. Section 56 (2) of the lilectricity Act, 2003 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity. It is thus, clear that in the case where there is a long spell of absence of the bill like in the present case, the bill is to be restricted to a period of two years preceding the date of the bill. In the present case, the bill has been issued on 28-2-2010 and there is no evidence that any bill prior thereto was served on the appellant-consumer. Thus, the bill cannot extend beyond a period of two years preceding 28-2-2010. Accordingly, the bill dated 28-2-2010 should remain confined to the consumption from 28-2-2008. 4. With the above modification in the bill, this appeal is partly allowed.