JUDGMENT : Dinesh Chandra Somani, J. This civil second appeal under section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment dated 05/10/2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Ajmer (hereinafter referred as "the First Appellate Court") in Civil Regular Appeal No. 44/2014 (101/2013) filed by plaintiff/respondent, whereby the Civil Regular Appeal was allowed and judgment dated 06/09/2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), South, Ajmer (hereinafter referred as "the learned trial Court") in original Civil Suit No. 8/2012 titled as Mohd. Gulfam Gani v. AVVNL has been set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/respondent has filed a civil suit against the defendant/appellants for a decree of declaration in the learned trial Court stating therein that he obtained electricity connection from the defendant for his tailoring work with sanctioned load of 3KW. On 13/10/2011, the plaintiff found his meter burnt and informed the defendant accordingly. On 14/10/2011, the engineers of defendant came on the spot, prepared a memo, and took the burnt meter with them stating that other meter will be installed. On 30/11/2011, the plaintiff received a letter from the defendant demanding Rs. 1,06,436/- on account of tempering with the meter. The plaintiff requested to place the matter before Settlement Committee and deposited 50% amount of the demand as per rules. On 29/12/2011, the plaintiff received a letter demanding Rs. 92,640/- instead of Rs. 1,06,436/- to be deposited immediately, failing which FIR will be lodged. Under this threat, the plaintiff was compelled to deposit the amount. The plaintiff prayed for declaration that the demand raised vide letters dated 30/11/2011 and 29/12/2011 is against law, as such the same is void and prayed that the amount received by the defendant be returned or adjusted towards the bills of future consumption of the plaintiff. 3. In written statement, the defendant/appellant admitted the fact that the plaintiff made a complaint on 13/10/2011 regarding meter burnt. It is also stated that on 14/10/2011, the engineers of the defendant went to the place of consumer and found that the meter was burnt. The meter was taken in custody and was sealed for getting it tested in laboratory. The meter was tested in Meter Testing Laboratory, Ajmer. It is also stated that on 14/10/2011, the engineers of the defendant went to the place of consumer and found that the meter was burnt. The meter was taken in custody and was sealed for getting it tested in laboratory. The meter was tested in Meter Testing Laboratory, Ajmer. The laboratory sent a report on 16/11/2011 mentioning therein that the meter was checked, meter body seal found partially cut and tempered, no sign of electrical burning was found inside the meter. The blue wire from PCB Terminal SH-1 found re-soldered on Phase Shunt Strip and re-soldering was also found on R & Y phases, which proves the tempering of the meter and theft of electricity. A notice dated 30/11/2011 was sent to the plaintiff to deposit Rs. 1,06,436/-. The plaintiff approached the Settlement Committee, which reduced the amount of demand to Rs. 92,640/- and the same was deposited by the plaintiff willingly. 4. The learned trial Court on basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed following issues:- 1. Whether demand notice dated 30/11/2011 and 29/12/2011 are against law and void? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for refund and adjustment of the amount deposited by him against the demand notice? 3. Relief? 5. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court decided issue No. 1 & 2 against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 06/09/2013. 6. Against the judgment and decree dated 06/09/2013, an appeal was filed by the respondent. The First Appellate Court after hearing the parties allowed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 05/10/2015 and set aside the judgment and decree dated 06/09/2013 passed by the learned trial Court and decreed the suit declaring that the demand notice dated 30/11/2011 and 29/12/2011 are void and the plaintiff is entitled for refund and adjustment of the amount deposited by him towards the said demand notice, in the bills of future consumption. 7. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 05/10/2015 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Ajmer, the defendant/appellant has preferred this second appeal. The present appeal has been filed with delay of 35 days as such the same is barred by limitation. Along with the appeal, the appellant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay caused in filing the appeal. 8. The present appeal has been filed with delay of 35 days as such the same is barred by limitation. Along with the appeal, the appellant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay caused in filing the appeal. 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant on application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and also on merits of the appeal. 9. Mr. Ram Singh Bhati, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned First Appellate Court has failed to consider the fact that sealed burnt meter was checked in Meter Testing Laboratory and according to testing report, the blue wire of PCB Terminal SH-1 was found re-soldered on Phase Shunt Strip and also on R & Y phases, which proves the fact of tempering of the meter and theft of the electricity. Even then, the learned First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit, therefore the impugned judgment and decree suffers from serious illegality and deserves to be set aside. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the plaintiff/respondent has approached the Settlement Committee, which reduced the amount from Rs. 1,06,436/- to Rs. 92,640/- and after satisfying with the decision of Settlement Committee, the respondent deposited the amount, even then the learned First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal, which is not just and proper. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the delay has been caused in filing the appeal because of the fact that opinion of the counsel was obtained after receipt of certified copy of the impugned judgment and, thereafter the matter was processed for taking decision at the different levels of the defendant company and decided to file appeal. Thereafter, the matter was sent to counsel for the AVVNL in High Court, who called the officers of the department to discuss the matter and to provide the relevant material. The delay caused in filing the appeal is bona fide and condonable and prayed to condone the delay caused in filing the appeal. 12. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is supported by affidavit also. The application is allowed for the reasons detailed out therein and delay caused in filing the appeal is condoned. 13. The delay caused in filing the appeal is bona fide and condonable and prayed to condone the delay caused in filing the appeal. 12. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is supported by affidavit also. The application is allowed for the reasons detailed out therein and delay caused in filing the appeal is condoned. 13. On consideration on submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusal of impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, indisputedly the plaintiff/respondent made a complaint to the defendant on 13/10/2011 that the meter has burnt. Prior to that, the plaintiff was regularly depositing the amount of bills for electricity consumption. On 14/10/2011, officers of the defendant went to the spot and took the meter with them for testing. Thereafter, the meter was sent to Meter Testing Laboratory. Report of the Meter Testing Laboratory revealed that the meter was tempered with. Learned First Appellate Court observed that it was obligatory for the defendants to send the meter to Electrical Inspector as provided under section 26 of The Indian Electricity Act, 1910 because the decision of the Electrical Inspector is final in the matters of tempering with meter, but the defendant without sending the meter to Electrical Inspector, sent a demand notice to the plaintiff on 30/11/2011 to deposit Rs. 1,06,436/-. The plaintiff requested to place the matter before Settlement Committee, whereupon the Committee reduced the amount to Rs. 92,640/-. The learned First Appellate Court also observed that the plaintiff did not deposit the amount willingly and he deposited the same because it was a condition precedent to place the matter before the Settlement Committee. Learned First Appellate Court also observed that there is no basis on record as to how the amount was calculated and the demand of Rs. 1,06,436/- and subsequent demand of Rs. 92,640/- were raised. 14. Relying upon the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rajasthan State Electricity Board & Ors. v. Rambhakt Hanuman Oil & Anr. reported in 2009 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1457, learned First Appellate Court declared the demand notice dated 30/11/2011 and 29/12/2011 as against law and void, and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff as mentioned here-in-above. 15. v. Rambhakt Hanuman Oil & Anr. reported in 2009 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1457, learned First Appellate Court declared the demand notice dated 30/11/2011 and 29/12/2011 as against law and void, and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff as mentioned here-in-above. 15. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the first Appellate Court, I am satisfied that the learned First Appellate Court has arrived at the above findings on relevant evidence and admitted facts of the case. Findings of learned First Appellate Court cannot be said to be perverse, no interference is required to be made. This Court is of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal, which is sine qua-non for exercise of jurisdiction under section 100 of CPC. 16. In view of the above, the second appeal does not deserve admission. 17. Consequently, this second appeal is dismissed at admission stage. No costs.