JUDGMENT JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. - This is an appeal preferred by the Punjab State Electricity Board against the judgment and decree dated 12.11.1984 passed by the Appellate court dismissing the appeal of the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1982 decreeing the suit of Sagar Gupta, respondent, for mandatory injunction directing the appellant/Board to restore the electric connection in the premises 41-R, Industrial Area, B, Ludhiana. 2. Having remained unsuccessful in both the courts, defendants/ appellants is in the instant second appeal before this Court. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant/appellants to restore electric connection bearing No.JM-15/284 installed in the premises No.41-R, Industrial Area ‘B', Ludhiana. It was further averred that the flying squad removed the said connection on the ground that the seals of electric meter were tampered and the Electric Meter was to be sent for examination by M & T Department. The plaintiff also averred that the defendant/appellants subsequently agreed to restore the said connection subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/-, which the plaintiff deposited with the defendant/appellants. The new meter was installed. The plaintiff/respondent regularly paid the electric bills upto June 1981. However, on 19.6.1981 the Board sent a letter to the plaintiff to deposit another sum of Rs.39837.39/-. 3. The plaintiff/respondent did not deposit the said amount and ultimately the said connection was disconnected temporarily. It was further averred that due to illegal act of defendant/appellants, the plaintiff/respondent suffered loss of lacs of rupees by the closure of his factory. 4. The defendant/appellants contested the suit of the plaintiff/respondent on the ground that though the electric connection was restored on deposit of Rs.10,000/-but when thoroughly checked the record of the plaintiff/respondent, a fresh demand of Rs.39837/-for the period from June 1978 to November 1980 on the basis of average consumption was made. The defendant/appellants further contested the case on the ground that on checking of the electric meter on 5.12.1980, its seals were found tampered and for this reason, the meter was removed for examination of its seals. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP 2. Relief. 6. Vide judgment and decree dated 25.11.1982, the suit of the plaintiff/respondent was decreed and the defendant/appellants were directed to restore the electric connection. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP 2. Relief. 6. Vide judgment and decree dated 25.11.1982, the suit of the plaintiff/respondent was decreed and the defendant/appellants were directed to restore the electric connection. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the defendant/appellants i.e. the Board preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Court, wherein the finding recorded by the learned trial Court was affirmed and appeal filed by the appellant/defendant was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.1984 7. The present appeal was admitted by this Court on 1.5.1985. 8. Learned counsel for the defendant/appellants has submitted that the seals of electric meter were found to be faked when a raid was conducted by Flying Squad and on that the plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/-for restoration of the same. However, the plaintiff gave an undertaking that the supply be restored without prejudice to the final decision of the Board. After thoroughly checking the record of the plaintiff, an amount of Rs.39837.30/-was found due from the respondent. When the plaintiff/respondent did not deposit the said amount, the electric connection was again disconnected. It has further been submitted that in the disconnection order, Exhibit D-2, is signed by the plaintiff/respondent, which shows that the plaintiff was responsible for the said act. 9. It has further been submitted that the said meter was produced in the trial Court during evidence and at that time it was not required by the plaintiff for its test by the M & T Laboratory. Learned counsel has also submitted that the courts below acted illegally in deciding against the appellants without considering the facts of the present case. 10. It has also been submitted that the courts below have mis-read and mis-interpreted the deposition of Bir Bhan, DW4. Though at the time of raid, three seals on the meter were intact but the same were duplicate, which facilitated the theft of energy. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant/respondent has submitted that the defendant/appellants changed his electric meter in May 1978 on the ground that the same was of low capacity and now they installed a meter of higher capacity, which was defective. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant/respondent has submitted that the defendant/appellants changed his electric meter in May 1978 on the ground that the same was of low capacity and now they installed a meter of higher capacity, which was defective. It is also submitted that the plaintiff/respondent deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/-with the condition that the same would be returned if his fault was not proved. Learned counsel has further submitted that now the defendant/appellants have been illegally demanding a sum of Rs.39837.39/-as electricity charges. It has further been submitted that there is no report of M&T report regarding genuineness of the seals of electric meter in question, which prove that the plaintiff is not at fault. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 13. The question to be determined by this Court is as under:- (i) Whether in the absence of M & T report, it can be conclusively established that the respondent committed theft of energy? 14. As per statement of S.C. Sood, DW1, he inspected the premises of the plaintiff/respondent on 5.12.1980 and found that the seals of electric meter were tampered with by him. Bir Bhan, DW4, has admitted that the seals of electric meter were fabricated and fake. However, I am of the view that such type of physical test is not sufficient to prove the fact that the seals were fake. It has come on record that the seals of the electric meter, in dispute, were not got tested from M & T Department, which is the only competent authority to give report, whether the seals have been tampered with or not. It has also come on record that to check the genuineness of the seals of electric meter, a test by the M & T is required. It is admitted fact that the M & T Department is the only competent authority to give report about the tampering of meter. From the record, it is proved that out of 4 seals on the electric meter, 3 were found intact, whereas 4th one had minor damage. In the absence of report of M & T Department, the fact of theft by the respondent is not established. The report of M & T Department is a conclusive proof to determine the same, which has not been obtained by the Board. In the absence of report of M & T Department, the fact of theft by the respondent is not established. The report of M & T Department is a conclusive proof to determine the same, which has not been obtained by the Board. In the circumstances, the statements recorded by the officials of the Board do not carry any weight. 15. In view of the above, I find that the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant have no merit. These are pure findings of fact. No question of law much less the substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Hence, no interference is called for. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal Allowed.