JUDGMENT : 1. These appeals are preferred under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against the common judgment and decree passed by the concerned Trial Court. 2. Since both the suits i.e. Special Civil Suit No.204 of 1994 and Special Civil Suit No.232 of 1997 are disposed of by the common judgment by the Trial Court, these appeals are heard together and the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Brief facts of First Appeal No.6356 of 1999 :- 3.1 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 07.05.1999 passed by the learned 4th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bharuch in Special Civil Suit No.204 of 1994, whereby the Trial Court has directed the appellants to pay Rs.4,05,905.60 paise (Rupees Four Lakh Five Thousand Nine Hundred Five and Sixty paise only) with running interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of suit till its realization the appellants have preferred the present appeal. It is contended by the appellants that it is a statutory Board established under the Electricity Act. It is contended that respondent’s i.e. original plaintiff’s meter was checked on 07.12.1992 and after following necessary formalities, the said meter was taken for testing and another meter was placed. It is also contended that on 22.12.1992, supply of the electricity was disconnected since the respondent was found committing theft of electricity and the supplementary bill was issued to the respondent for Rs.6,81,801/- (Rupees Six Lakh Eighty One Thousand Eight Hundred one Only). Challenging the said bill, the respondent has filed the aforesaid Special Civil Suit which came to be allowed by the impugned judgment and decree. 3.2 The appellants have challenged the aforesaid judgment and decree on the grounds that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the entire proceedings of sealing of the meter, checking, preparing Rojkam, testing were carried out by the Officers of the appellants in their regular course and the same was done in the manner as the same was required to be done. It is also contended that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the plaintiff failed to prove that there was any irregularity the aforesaid proceedings. It is contended that simply because the respondent does not understand Gujarati language would not vitiate the Rojkam in the proceedings of the appellants herein. It is also contended that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the plaintiff failed to prove that there was any irregularity the aforesaid proceedings. It is contended that simply because the respondent does not understand Gujarati language would not vitiate the Rojkam in the proceedings of the appellants herein. It is also contended that the respondent has first time raised this dispute when he has approached the Trial Court and that too, at the time of filing of the suit. It is further contended that the bill was issued to the respondent as per the tariffs and in accordance with the rules by calculating the average bill and the respondent failed to prove that it was not in accordance with the law. It is also contended that the Trial Court has also failed to appreciate the fact that the oral evidence of Mr.Roongta that he did not understand the contents of the documents would not vitiate the documents or the genuineness of the documents and the same cannot be doubted on the grounds that executant has no knowledge of the content thereof as it was in Gujarati language. It is also contended that when there was documentary evidence, then, there cannot be oral evidence to exclude the documentary evidence. According to the appellants, the entire Chapter VI of the Evidence Act has been given go-bye in the present case while appreciating the entire evidence. It is further contended that the Trial Court ought not to have gone into the matter of correction of the bill, especially, when the respondent has failed to prove that the bill is not in accordance with the law. On all these grounds, the appellants have prayed to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.05.1999 passed by the learned 4th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bharuch in Special Civil Suit No.204 of 1994. 4. Brief facts of First Appeal No.6358 of 1999:- 4.1 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and decree dated 07.05.1999 passed by the learned 4th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bharuch in Special Civil Suit No.232 of 1997 dismissing the suit filed by the appellants to recover the amount of supplementary bill for Rs.6,81,801.07 paise (Rupees Six Lakh Eighty One Thousand Eight Hundred One and Seven paise Only) from the respondent, the appellants has preferred this appeal. 4.2 It is contended that the appellants have filed the aforesaid Special Civil Suit to recover the amount of supplementary bill for Rs.6,81,801.07 from the respondent on the ground that the respondent – factory had tempered with the electrical meter and it was a case of electricity theft/pilferage. It is contended that the proper procedure was followed by the appellant – Board on 07.12.1992 and it was carried out in the presence of Atul Roongta and it was found that the plastic seal on iron box was suspicious and the meter was taken away and was replaced with another meter. It is contended that Atul Roongta who made a voluntary statement to that effect and signed it. It is also contended that on 24.12.1992, the mater was tested in Board in presence of Atul Roongta and he voluntarily signed the statement made before and after the Laboratory Test. It is contended that during the laboratory test, it was found that there were yellow plastic seals on the said meter and sealing on the right side was not proper and the liquid was found between top and bottom at plastic seal and liquid was found sprayed on upper and lower portion of the seal. It is contended that the paper seal on right and left side of the meter was in torn condition and screw was found shining. According to the appellants, the respondent was found guilty of tempering with the meter and it was a case of theft of electricity and, therefore, supplementary bill was issued after due calculation. 4.3 It is contended that the respondent has preferred appeal after depositing 30% of the bill which was properly heard and decided. Against that, the respondent preferred a writ petition before this court and as per the order of the Court they deposited Rs.1,00,000/-. In the said writ petition, this Court has directed the Board to rehear the matter after giving opportunity of hearing and to decide the appeal assigning the reasons. It is contended that accordingly, after giving opportunity of hearing and assigning the reasons, the appeal was rejected. Since, the respondent did not pay the amount, the suit in question was filed, wherein also, the respondent deposited Rs.36,364/- in Special Civil Suit No.204 of 1994 filed by the respondent. It is contended that accordingly, after giving opportunity of hearing and assigning the reasons, the appeal was rejected. Since, the respondent did not pay the amount, the suit in question was filed, wherein also, the respondent deposited Rs.36,364/- in Special Civil Suit No.204 of 1994 filed by the respondent. 4.4 It is contended by the appellants that the respondent has also filed the written statement at Exhibit 8 wherein has denied the rights and legalities of the suit and stuck to the averments and contentions made in Special Civil Suit No.204 of 1994. 4.5 It is also contended that the Trial Court has not appreciated the entire evidence on record and has erred in analyzing the same. It is contended that there is ample evidence to show that there was tampered with the seals of the matter and there was a theft of electricity and that fact has not been appreciated by the Trial Court in its proper perspective. It is contended that the Trial Court has not considered the oral and documentary evidence produced at Exhibit 78, 79, 81 and 82. It is contended that as per the evidence of the plaintiff – Board, the case has been proved by the plaintiff and, therefore, the Trial Court ought to have granted the decree in favour of the plaintiff instead of dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. On these grounds, the appellants have prayed to allow the appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and decree and to allow the suit filed by the appellants herein. 5. Brief facts of the Special Civil Suit No.204 of 1994:- 5.1 The original plaintiff – company is a Limited Company having its Head Office at Bombay and it is manufacturing knitted fabrics at Ankleshwar and the day to day manufacturing activities are being looked after by working Director Mr.Roongta. It is the case of the plaintiff – company that it is doing job work and if there is no job work than it remains closed for that particular period. It is further the case of the plaintiff – company that the consumption of electricity is varying from day to day and it is not constant. It is the case of the plaintiff – company that it is doing job work and if there is no job work than it remains closed for that particular period. It is further the case of the plaintiff – company that the consumption of electricity is varying from day to day and it is not constant. According to the plaintiff – company, in the year 1992, it had connected load of 58 H.P. from the defendant – Gujarat Electricity Board and at the time of filing of the suit, it was 78 H.P. load. 5.2 According to the plaintiff – company, the meter put by the GEB on 28.01.1991 was sealed and fixed inside of an iron box, which was again sealed by the defendant – Board and installation was checked by flying squad from Baroda and Ankleshwar and they have found the said meter sealed etc. quite alright. It is further case of the plaintiff – company that on 07.12.1992, 4 to 5 persons from the Gujarat Electricity Board came to the plaintiff’s factory and visited the place where the meter was placed in an iron box and found that seal intact. They cut the seal of an iron box, opened it and removed the electric meter packed and sealed the said meter, then they prepared a paper written in Gujarati and asked Mr.Roongta, the working Director of the plaintiff – company to sign it, who refused to sign at the first instance, but on threatening to disconnect electrical supply immediately, to avoid disconnection and to keep the factory working, Mr.Roongta, working Director was compelled to signed the said papers which were written in Gujarati language. According to the plaintiff – company, the Engineer from the Electricity Board has not explained in English to Mr.Roongta and, therefore, the Director made a remark that he has no doubt regarding the meter or sealed as it is Gujarat Electricity Board’s property and on second page of this paper, he has made an endorsement that prior intimation should have been given and as and when the said meter to be tested in the laboratory thus his signature was obtained without making him understand in English. According to the plaintiff – company, Mr.Roongta was educated in English medium right from K.G. to graduation at Bombay and was brought up in such society wherein he has no contact of Gujarati language. According to the plaintiff – company, Mr.Roongta was educated in English medium right from K.G. to graduation at Bombay and was brought up in such society wherein he has no contact of Gujarati language. It is further case of the plaintiff – company that the defendant’s Engineer has also obtained the signature on same blank printed in Gujarati written paper on 07.12.1992. It is also case of the plaintiff – company that thereafter, the concerned Engineer put another meter as replacement which was monitored daily and kept under their observation for a period of almost two years. 5.3 It is the case of the plaintiff – company that on 22.12.1992, the defendant – Board suddenly disconnected the plaintiff’s electrical supply and issued the supplementary bill No.705030 for Rs.6,81,801.07 paise. According to the plaintiff – company, on 24.12.1992, when the Director Mr.Roongta went to inquire about the disconnection of electrical supply on 22.12.1992, they instructed him to come to the laboratory and he accompanied him to laboratory. It is further the case of the plaintiff – company that at the place of laboratory, the signatures of Mr.Roongta were obtained on blank Gujarati printed papers on assurance that it’s a routing process and meter is quite alright. It is further the case of the plaintiff – company that the meter was not tested nor it was sealed in the presence of Mr.Roongta and the said meter was in the custody of the Electricity Board from 07.12.1992 to 22.12.1992 and even at the time of filing of the suit, it was in the custody of the Electricity Board. It is also the case of the plaintiff – company that the defendant had not explained anything about the procedure or testing of the said meter. On all these grounds, it is alleged by the plaintiff that the action of the Electricity Board is illegal and supplementary bill is also illegal. 5.4 It is contended that being aggrieved by the said issuance of the supplementary bill, the plaintiff has approached this Court and obtained a stay for disconnection of electricity supply and this Court directed the plaintiff to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- and accordingly, plaintiff – company deposited said amount by Demand Draft No.370058 on 25.09.1993 and the said amount has been withdrawn by the Electricity Board. It is further contended that while allowing the writ petition, this Court has directed the Appellate Committee of the Electricity Board to hear the plaintiff and pass a speaking order instead of one line order. It is further contended that thereafter, without giving any opportunity of being heard to the advocate, straightway appeal came to be rejected. It is further contended that the entire proceedings before the Appellate Committee is pre-determined and illegal and on this basis, the plaintiff has sought for declaration that the supplementary bill of Rs.6,81,801.07 paise, proceeding and so-called statement dated 07.12.1992 and 24.12.1992 and laboratory test report dated 24.12.1992 as well as allegation of the theft and disconnection of the electric supply dated 22.12.1992 are illegal, unilateral not binding to the plaintiff – company. The plaintiff has also claimed for the relief for permanent injunction against the defendant against the recovery of the alleged bill amount and against disconnection of electricity supply. The plaintiff has also sought for the claim of damage of Rs.70,000/- and refund of the amount of Rs.3,74,540.60 paise and Rs.36,364/- along with the interest at the rate of 24% per annum. 6. The Electricity Board has resisted the suit by filing written statement at Exhibit 36 and has denied all the contentions of the plaintiff regarding illegality of the proceedings and against the relief of declaration and injunction, it is alleged that there was clear case of theft of electricity and, therefore, the defendant – Board has rightly issued supplementary bill of Rs.6,81,801.07 and has right to disconnect the electricity supply. It is contended that the entire proceedings of checking as well as laboratory testing on the meter was done in presence of Mr.Roongta, who is well conversant with the Gujarati language and he is able to read, writ and understand the same. It is further stated that Mr.Roongta has voluntarily made statement regarding the procedure and signed the statement at the place of checking and in laboratory. It is also alleged that while testing the meter in the laboratory, it was found that there were three yellow plastic seals on the said meter, but their sealing on the right side was not proper and the liquid was found between top and bottom at plastic seal and liquid was also found spread on upper and lower portion of the seal. It was also alleged that the paper seal or right and left side of the meter was torn and the screw was found shining. According to the Electricity Board, it was the case of the theft of electricity and they have rightly calculated a supplementary bill. It is further alleged that the plaintiff had deposited 30% of the bill and preferred an appeal, which has properly heard and an opportunity of being heard was also given to the plaintiff. It was urged to dismiss the suit. 7. It appears from the record that the Trial Court has framed the following issues in Special Civil Application No.204 of 1994 at Exhibit 24:- 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit bill is illegal ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief ? 3. What order and decree ? 8. The aforesaid issues have been decided by the Trial Court as under:- 1. In affirmative; 2. In affirmative; 3. As per final order; 9. Brief facts of Special Civil Suit No.232 of 1997: 9.1 It also appears from the record that the Special Civil Suit No.232 of 1997 which was preferred by the plaintiff – Gujarat Electricity Board is to recovery the amount of supplementary bill amounting to Rs.6,81,801.07 paise from the defendant – company on the ground that the company has committed the theft of electricity. It has reiterated the averments made in the written statement in the Special Civil Suit No.204 of 1994 filed by the company. It has also reiterated the fact that the checking of electricity connection and testing of the meter was done in presence of Mr.Roongta, working Director of the company and ultimately, it has filed money suit for the amount of Rs.6,81,801.07 with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. 9.2 In the aforesaid suit of Gujarat Electricity Board, the company has resisted the suit by filing its written statement at Exhibit 8 and it has denied the rights and legality of the Electricity Board’ suit and denied all the averments and allegations made in the suit. It has adhered to the averments and contentions made in the plaint at Special Civil Suit No.204 of 1994. It is contended that the entire proceedings was illegal as Mr.Roongta, working Director was not knowing the Gujarati language and his signature was only obtained without explaining the contention of the documents. It has adhered to the averments and contentions made in the plaint at Special Civil Suit No.204 of 1994. It is contended that the entire proceedings was illegal as Mr.Roongta, working Director was not knowing the Gujarati language and his signature was only obtained without explaining the contention of the documents. Thus, in sum and substance, the contentions made on behalf of the company are the same which are made in the plaint of earlier suit being Special Civil Suit No.204 of 1994 filed by it. In addition to it, it is contended that the suit of the Electricity Board is beyond the period of limitation and the Board has no legal right to recover the said amount and sought for dismissal of the suit. 10. It appears from the record that the Trial Court has framed the following issues in Special Civil Application No.232 of 1997 at Exhibit 10:- 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit amount of Rs.6,81,801.07 paise due from the defendant ? 2. Whether the suit is time barred ? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any amount ? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest from the defendant of filing of the suit ? If yes, at what rate? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed or any of the reliefs? 6. What order and decree ? 11. The aforesaid issues have been decided by the Trial Court as under:- 1. In negative; 2. In affirmative; 3. In negative; 4. In negative; 5. In negative; 6. As per final order; 12. The following points arises for determination of the present First Appeals:- 1. Whether the Trial Court has committed serious error of facts and law in holding that the suit filed by the Gujarat Electricity Board is time barred? 2. Whether the Trial Court has committed serious error of facts and law in holding that the Gujarat Electricity Board is not entitled to recovery the supplementary bill amounting to Rs.6,81,801.07 paise along with interest @ 15% on it? 3. Whether the Trial Court has committed serious error of facts and law in passing the decree of declaration and injunction in favour of the company and to refund of Rs.4,05,965.60 paise? 4. Whether the Trial Court has committed serious error of facts and law in dismissing the suit filed by the Gujarat Electricity Board? 5. What order ? 3. Whether the Trial Court has committed serious error of facts and law in passing the decree of declaration and injunction in favour of the company and to refund of Rs.4,05,965.60 paise? 4. Whether the Trial Court has committed serious error of facts and law in dismissing the suit filed by the Gujarat Electricity Board? 5. What order ? 13. My findings, for the reasons given below are, are as under:- 1. In negative; 2. In negative; 3. In partly affirmative; 4. In negative; 5. As per final order. REASONS 14. Since all the points are inter-related, to avoid the repetition of the facts and circumstances, all are discussed together. 15. Heard Ms.Lilu Bhaya, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Daxesh Dave, learned counsel for the respondent – company through video conferencing. 16. Ms.Lilu Bhaya, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted the same facts which are narrated in both the appeals. She has submitted that there is ample evidence on record to show that there is clear case of theft of electricity made by the respondent. She has submitted that there was checking of meter on 07.12.1992 in presence of Atul Roongta and he has signed all the documents which includes Rojkam etc. She has submitted that the meter was tested on 24.12.1992 in presence of Atul Roongta and during the laboratory testing, it was found that there was tampering with the seal of the meter and accordingly, calculation of electric charges was made. She has submitted that at the relevant time, Atul Roongta has signed the documents and he has never raised any objection that he does not know the Gujarati language. She has submitted that the said dispute has been raised only after filing of the suit by the respondent. 16.1 Ms.Bhaya, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that against the supplementary bill, the respondent has preferred appeal before the Appellate Forum of the Board and during that period, it has paid 30% of the supplementary bill and, thereafter, the respondent had preferred Special Civil Application before this Court wherein he has deposited Rs.1,00,000/- as per order of this Court. She has submitted that in view of the order passed by this Court, further opportunity was given to the respondent and after assigning reasons, the appeal came to be dismissed. She has submitted that in view of the order passed by this Court, further opportunity was given to the respondent and after assigning reasons, the appeal came to be dismissed. She has submitted that thereafter, the respondent approached the Civil Court by filing the suit being Special Civil Suit No.204 of 1994 wherein the respondent has deposited approximately Rs.36,000/- and has challenged the action of the appellants herein regarding the issuance of the supplementary bill. She has submitted that the appellants herein have preferred another suit for recovery of the supplementary bill. She has submitted that both the suits have been tried together. Ultimately the suit of the respondent came to be allowed with interest, whereas, the suit filed by the Gujarat Electricity Board has been dismissed by the Trial Court. 16.2 Ms.Bhaya, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is clear case of heft of electricity which has been borne out from the oral evidence produced by the Gujarat Electricity Board. That, the Board has produced all documentary evidence. According to her submissions, the Trial Court has not considered the oral as well as documentary evidence produced in the case. She has submitted that merely because Atul Roongta was not knowing the Gujarati language that fact itself is not a ground to disbelieve the oral version of the witness of the plaintiff herein and contents of the documents produced in the case by the appellant – Gujarat Electricity Board. She has submitted that when the presence of Atul Roongta has been admitted, then, it was for the respondent to prove that there was no case of commission of theft of energy and supplementary bill is not in accordance with law. While referring to the documentary evidence and the observation of the Trial Court, she has submitted that there is no need of any independent persons to be present at the time of preparation of the panchnama. She has stated that the checking as well as statements of the witnesses are produced in the matter which ought to have been properly appreciated by the Trial Court in its proper perspective. She has submitted that as the documents produced by the appellant – Gujarat Electricity Board regarding the theft of electricity by the Company, there is also seal of the company which clearly suggests that there is nothing on record to reject the contents of the documents. She has submitted that as the documents produced by the appellant – Gujarat Electricity Board regarding the theft of electricity by the Company, there is also seal of the company which clearly suggests that there is nothing on record to reject the contents of the documents. She has submitted that no suit can be filed, till the right is crystallized. According to her submission, since the Company has not paid the supplementary bill, the suit was filed by the Board for recovery thereof. The right to file suit in favour of the Board was crystalized after non-payment of supplementary bill even after disposal of the appeals by Appellate Forum. She has submitted that as there was litigation pending, the Board could not file Special Civil Suit No.232 of 1997. She has submitted that the suit filed by the Board cannot said to be barred by law of limitation. According to her submission, the entire reasoning assigned by the Trial Court in passing decree in favour of the Company is based on assumption and presumption. She has submitted that the Trial Court has committed serious error of facts and law in allowing Special Civil Suit No.204 of 1994 and dismissing Special Civil Suit No.232 of 1997. She has submitted that the judgment and decree is required to be quashed and set aside and the appeals filed by the Gujarat Electricity Board needs to be allowed in toto. 16.3 Ms.Bhaya, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the following decisions. (1) J.M. D. Alloys Ltd Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and others, (2003) 5 SCC 226 ; (2) Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd. Vs. A. P. State Electricity Board and others, (1998) 4 SCC 470 17. Per contra, Mr.Daxesh Dave, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that Special Civil Suit No.204 of 1994 was filed by the respondent for declaration as well as permanent injunction and damages, whereas, Special Civil Suit No. 232 of 1997 was filed by the Gujarat Electricity Board for recovery of supplementary bill. While referring to the documentary evidence, he has submitted that as alleged the checking of the meter was made on 07.12.1992 and theft of electricity was alleged to have been found on 24.12.1992. While referring to the documentary evidence, he has submitted that as alleged the checking of the meter was made on 07.12.1992 and theft of electricity was alleged to have been found on 24.12.1992. According to him, the cause of action for filing the suit for recovery of supplementary bill arised on 24.12.1992, whereas, the suit was filed on 23.12.1997 being Special Civil Suit No.232 of 1997. According to him, the suit filed by the Gujarat Electricity Board being Special Civil Suit No.232 of 1997 is clearly time barred. 17.1 Mr.Dave, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that as per pages no.33 and 34 of the judgment and decree, the meter was not tampered with. He has submitted that no opportunity was given to the respondent and the laboratory report dated 24.12.1992 was also not provided to the respondent. He has submitted that though Mr.Atul Roongta has signed the documents, he does not know the Gujarati language and, therefore, he does not know the contents of the documents produced by the Gujarat Electricity Board. According to him, the Trial Court has clearly taken into consideration all these aspects of the matter and has properly rejected the suit of the Gujarat Electricity Board and allowed the suit of the respondent. According to him, the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court are just and proper and they are not perverse one. He has submitted that the judgments and decree are sustainable in the eyes of law as there is no factual or legal perversity. He has prayed to dismiss both the appeals and to confirm the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. 18. In the case of J.M. D. Alloys Ltd (supra), considering the factual matrix of that case, it was observed by the Apex Court that where the seal on CT/PT terminal box was found during inspection to be tampered with assessment of compensatory amount under clause 16.9 for the maximum period of 180 days is proper. Regarding jurisdiction of Electrical Inspector, it was held that it does not extend to decide a dispute as to whether the seal on CT/PT terminal box was tampered with and whether the working of the meter affected by some external devices. Regarding jurisdiction of Electrical Inspector, it was held that it does not extend to decide a dispute as to whether the seal on CT/PT terminal box was tampered with and whether the working of the meter affected by some external devices. 18.1 In the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court has observed in para-17 as under:- “17…….The formula for calculating the fuel surcharge is a long and complicated one and is given in Clause 16.10.3 of the Tariff. A host of factors have to be taken into consideration in calculating the fuel surcharge and they depend upon many variables. Shri Reddy has submitted that since the surcharge has necessarily to be taken into consideration and has to be added in the cost of electricity and, therefore, in accordance with part (III) of Clause 16.9 of the Tariff, it should also be assessed at three times the rate per unit. We are unable to accept the contention raised. Clauses 16.9 and 16.10.3 are separate and distinct clauses in the Tariff. Clause 16.9 lays down the formula for calculating the value of the electrical energy abstracted or consumed by a consumer by exceeding the contracted load or by creating obstruction in running of meter. Part (III) of this clause deals with method of charging the assessed units and sub-para (a) thereof lays down that the consumption so assessed shall be charged at thrice the rate per unit of the Tariff applicable to the consumer excluding the consumption recorded by the meter and the latter shall be charged at the appropriate Tariff rates. Clause 16.10.3 is a separate clause which deals with fuel surcharge and it nowhere lays down that this additional surcharge will also be levied at thrice the rate per unit of the tariff. The two clauses namely 16.9 and 16.10.3 have to be read separately and there being no specific provision for assessing the fuel surcharge at thrice the rate per unit, it is not possible to hold that in such a case the fuel surcharge should also be charged at thrice the rate per unit. 19. In the case of Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd (supra), the Apex Court, while dealing with Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, has observed in para-27 as under:- “27……..Section 49 empowers the Board to supply electricity on `such terms and conditions as it thinks fit'. It may also frame uniform tariffs. 19. In the case of Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd (supra), the Apex Court, while dealing with Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, has observed in para-27 as under:- “27……..Section 49 empowers the Board to supply electricity on `such terms and conditions as it thinks fit'. It may also frame uniform tariffs. We have found that the terms and conditions of supply are statutory in character. They can be invalidated only if they are in conflict with any provision of the Act or the Constitution. Learned counsel have not shown to us any provision in the Supply Act with which Clause 39 is in conflict. In so far as the Supply Act is concerned, argument hovers around Section 49 only. The only limitation in that Section is that the terms and conditions of supply should b e subject to the provisions of the Act. Clause 39 does not violate any provision in the Supply Act . It is the statutory duty of the Board to arrange for the supply of electricity throughout the State and for transmission and distribution of the same in the most efficient and economical manner. For that purpose it has necessarily got to prevent unauthorised user, pilferage or malpractices by the consumers. Hence the necessary safeguards have to be provided as part of the conditions of supply so that the consumers will be bound by them. While on the one hand, the Board has to recoup the loss suffered by such pilferage or other malpractices., it has also on the other got to stop immediately the continuation thereof. Hence the terms and conditions of supply have to provide for compensation as well as immediate disconnection. For ascertaining the loss and fixing the compensation, uniform procedure has to be framed and a machinery constituted. Clause 39 is only doing that. Every consumer is made fully aware of the said terms and he signs the contract only on that basis. He gives an undertaking in that contract that if he is found indulging in any malpractice etc. he shall pay additional charges as may be levied by the Board and that t he Board have the right to disconnect supply of electricity to his premises for such period as may be decided by the Board.” 20. He gives an undertaking in that contract that if he is found indulging in any malpractice etc. he shall pay additional charges as may be levied by the Board and that t he Board have the right to disconnect supply of electricity to his premises for such period as may be decided by the Board.” 20. Regarding the jurisdiction of the Electrical Inspector, the aforesaid decision has been referred to and relied upon in the case of J.M. D. Alloys Ltd (supra). The Apex Court has observed in para 35 as under:- “35…….. Clause 39 will come into play whenever there is malpractice or pilferage on the part of the consumer or a fraud played by the consumer. The Electrical Inspector has no jurisdiction to deal with those matters. He can be approached only when there is a defective meter or any defect in wires, fittings, works or apparatus…….” 21. Now, on perusal of the record, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff – company has examined Mr.Atul Roongta at Exhibit 61. The plaintiff has also produced the documents which consists of xerox copy of the supplementary bill with statement at the time of checking and testing report at Exhibit 44 and 45, receipt of deposit of amount at Exhibit 46. test report at Exhibit 49, notice at Exhibit 50, load test report at Exhibit 51, order passed by this Court at Exhibit 52, xerox copy of the Demand Draft at Exhibit 53 and 70, certificate of Chartered Accountant at Exhibit 65, installation checking report at Exhibit 66, copy of the order from Manish Vinyls dated 30.12.1992 at Exhibit 71, copy of the applications of non-receipt of the documents at Exhibit 89 and 90 and the consumption chart from 1989 to 1998 at Exhibit 95, application. 22. Against this, the defendant side has examined Mr.R. J. Thakur, Deputy Engineer at Exhibit 78 and Mr.S. J. Panchal, Deputy Engineer (Laboratory In-charge) at Exhibit 94. The defendant has produced the documentary evidence which consists of original statement of Director Mr.Roongta at Exhibit 79, office copy of the notice at Exhibit 80, customer’s meter test report at Exhibit 81, customer’s statement before and and after laboratory test report at Exhibit 82, order of the Appellate Committee at Exhibit 83, original Assessment Sheet at Exhibit 85, office copy of Assessment at Exhibit 86 and the order of Appellate Committee at Exhibit 88. 23. 23. It is pertinent to note that as per the version of the defendant - Gujarat Electricity Board, the supplementary bill was issued on 24.12.1992. Now, the defendant - Gujarat Electricity Board has filed the suit for recovery of the amount of the supplementary bill on 22.12.1997. In this regard, it is the stand of the learned advocate for the defendants that due to the litigation pending before the High Court and the matter being pending with the authority and the suit being Special Civil Suit No.204 of 1994 was pending, the right to file the suit by the Board occurred later on in point of time. Therefore, according to her, since right to file suit was not crystalised in favour of the Board, the suit for recovery of supplementary bill was not filed and it was filed in the year 1997. She has also submitted that therefore, the suit filed by the Board cannot be branded as barred by law of limitation. This submissions of learned advocate for the defendant i.e. Gujarat Electricity Board is devoid of merits. On perusal of the plaint of Special Civil Suit No.232 of 1997, it is found that there is no whisper as to how the suit is in limitation. Even, if the statement made on behalf of learned advocate for the Gujarat Electricity Board is considered, then, it appears that the suit supplementary bill was issued on 24.12.1992. It also appears that the Appellate Committee of the Board has passed the first order rejecting the appeal on 04.08.1993 as per Exhibit 49 which was challenged by the plaintiff – company before the High Court by way of filing writ petition which came to be disposed of vide order dated 19.08.1994 with a direction to the Appellate Committee to rehear the matter after providing an opportunity of being heard to the plaintiff - company. The Appellate Committee has decided the same on 15.10.1994 which has been reflected from the letter dated 02.11.1997 at Exhibit 84. Thus, even for calculating the limitation period, the date of the decision of the Appellate Committee i.e. 15.10.1994 is taken into consideration, the suit filed on 22.12.1994 by the Gujarat Electricity Board is clearly hopelessly time barred. The Appellate Committee has decided the same on 15.10.1994 which has been reflected from the letter dated 02.11.1997 at Exhibit 84. Thus, even for calculating the limitation period, the date of the decision of the Appellate Committee i.e. 15.10.1994 is taken into consideration, the suit filed on 22.12.1994 by the Gujarat Electricity Board is clearly hopelessly time barred. Thus, the observations of the Trial Court regarding the suit of the defendants being Special Civil Suit No.232 of 1997 being time barred is factually and legally sustainable in the eyes of law and the Trial Court has not committed any errors of facts and law in this regard. 24. On perusal of the entire oral as well as documentary evidence, it appears that there is no dispute regarding the facts that electricity connection was installed in the factory premises of the plaintiff – Company from the defendants. It is also an undisputed facts that on the relevant date, there was checking carried out by the officer of the defendants and at that time, some rojkam was prepared wherein the signature of Mr.Roongta was made in English language. It is also appears that the meter was checked in laboratory on 24.12.1992. It also appears from the evidence that the electricity connection was disconnected on 22.12.1992 i.e. before testing of the meter in the laboratory. It also reveals from the evidence of Mr.Roongta that it is his specific stand that he does not know the Gujarati language and during the course of checking at the factory as well as during the course of so-called laboratory testing, he was not explained anything in English and he was threatened to sign all the documents which were written in Gujarati language. In this regard, on perusal of the evidence of Mr.R. J. Thakur of the defendants, it appears that he has categorically admitted in his admission that he has knowledge that Mr.Roongta was not knowing the Gujarati and Hindi language. He has admitted that he knew that Mr.Roongta was knowing only English language. It is admission on the part of Mr.Thakur that he has not explained anything regarding contents of the statement as well as rojkam and the test report in English to Mr.Roongta. Thus, the allegation of Mr.Roongta that he did not know the Gujarati language is categorically admitted by the witness of the defendants. It is admission on the part of Mr.Thakur that he has not explained anything regarding contents of the statement as well as rojkam and the test report in English to Mr.Roongta. Thus, the allegation of Mr.Roongta that he did not know the Gujarati language is categorically admitted by the witness of the defendants. Of course, he denied the suggestion that the signature of Mr.Roongta was taken by threatening him to disconnect electricity connection. 25. Now, considering the documentary evidence on record, it transpires that all the documentary evidence are in Gujarati language. It also appears that the signature of Mr.Roongta and endorsement made by him are in English language. The important factor placed in favour of the plaintiff is that the alleged checking was carried out on 07.12.1992 and electricity supply was disconnected on 22.12.1992, whereas, the meter was testing in laboratory on 24.12.1992. Thus, the electricity supply was disconnected without knowing as to whether there was any theft of electricity or not. It was necessary to ascertain as to whether there is any theft of electricity or not prior to disconnecting the electricity connection. Now, admittedly, in this case, prior to meter being testing in laboratory, the electricity supply of the factory was disconnected. 26. It further reveals from the oral and documentary evidence that the meter was kept in iron box and seal on the box was intact at the relevant time of checking on 07.12.1992. It also reveals from the evidence of the defendant’s witness that no foreign inside the meter. Whatever found is regarding some sort of liquid being found in with the outer seal. But, since there was no any mechanical or technical tampering with the internal part of the meter, how the fault was assessed is a main question. In this regard, there is no iota of evidence led by the defendants herein. It also reveals from the evidence of Mr.Thakur that the assessment of the theft of electricity is made only on the ground that there was some liquid was found in outer seal of the meter. It is not a case of the defendant that some outer material was inserted in the meter by tampering with inside the meter. Therefore, on re-appreciation of the evidence on record, it clearly appears that without any basis, the supplementary bill has been issued by the Gujarat Electricity Board to the plaintiff - company. 27. It is not a case of the defendant that some outer material was inserted in the meter by tampering with inside the meter. Therefore, on re-appreciation of the evidence on record, it clearly appears that without any basis, the supplementary bill has been issued by the Gujarat Electricity Board to the plaintiff - company. 27. At the same time, considering the evidence on record as discussed hereinabove, when there was no iota of evidence regarding tampering with the meter and at the time of checking, when the meter was taken out from the iron box, which was having intact seal, the version of the defendants that there was theft of electricity is meritless. 28. Now, considering the factual matrix of this case, it is crystal clear that there was nothing found in the internal part of the meter which may suggest that there is theft of electricity. It also reveals from the observations made hereinabove that when the checking was carried out, the meter was found in iron box which was having proper seal and there was no tamper with the seal of the meter. Moreover, there is no concrete evidence or report by the testing laboratory that due to the defect noted in Rojkam there is pilferage or theft of electricity. Thus, the factual matrix of this case is clearly different from the facts of the aforesaid both the decisions. 29. It is pertinent to note that so far as the claim of the plaintiff - company regarding damage of Rs.70,000/- is concerned, it appears from the record that the plaintiff - company has not examined any person to substantiate his version. Not only that the plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidence like the profit and loss account, balance sheet etc. to substantiate it’s claim of damages to show that the due to non-availability of electricity, on account of disconnection of electricity, during the period from 12.12.1992 to 05.01.1993, the plaintiff - company has incurred damage of Rs.70,000/-. The reasoning assigned by the Trial Court for rejecting the claim of damage of Rs.70,000/- is in consonance with the evidence on record. Therefore, the decision of the Trial Court in this regard needs to be confirmed. 30. The reasoning assigned by the Trial Court for rejecting the claim of damage of Rs.70,000/- is in consonance with the evidence on record. Therefore, the decision of the Trial Court in this regard needs to be confirmed. 30. On perusal of the impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court, it appears that the Trial Court has taken into consideration every aspects in its proper perspective and has properly appreciated the evidence on record in declaring that the supplementary bill is not legal and valid and the defendant - Gujarat Electricity Board is not entitled to recover it, even on the ground of limitation is proper one. However, while calculating the amount refundable to the plaintiff - company, it appears that there is no dispute regarding the deposit of Rs.3,40,904.60 paise by the plaintiff - company, the Trial Court has added Rs.64,000/- as an interest at the rate of 15% from the date of the deposit till the date of filing of Special Civil Suit No.204 of 1994. The awarding of interest is considered on the ground that the Gujarat Electricity Board is charging interest on commercial rate in a supplementary bill. Therefore, considering this fact, the Trial Court has awarded 15% interest. But, this factor is not the only factor to award higher rate of interest. The other factors like prevailing rate of interest as well as the rate of interest fixed by RBI needs to be considered. Thus considering, the interest at the rate of 15% as awarded by the Trial Court is on higher side. Therefore, the rate of interest needs to be reduced from 15% to 9%. On calculation, the amount of interest would come to Rs.53,692 i.e. Rs.53700/-. As such the plaintiff – Company will be entitled to Rs.3,94,604.60 paise (Rs.3,40,904.60 + Rs.53,700/- has interest). 31. Further, it is pertinent to note that the Trial Court, while granting the decree in favour of the plaintiff – Company has granted permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff - Company which is permanent in nature, affecting the future rights of the Board to the extent that in case of theft of electricity, in future, by the company, Board may not be able to take necessary action which may include issuance of supplementary bill and disconnection of electricity. This needs to be modified to the extent that only for non-payment of disputed supplementary bill, there would not be disconnection of electricity with necessary clarification. 32. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I pass the following final order: ORDER First Appeal No.6356 of 1999 is partly allowed. The judgment and decree passed in Special Civil Suit No.204 of 1994 is hereby modified to the extent that the respondent i.e. Company is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.3,94,604.60 paise instead of Rs.4,05,905.60 paise along with the interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of deposit of the amount till the actual realization. Further, the permanent injunction granted by the Trial Court is modified to the extent that the appellants herein and its officers and servants are hereby permanently restrained from disconnecting the electricity connection of the respondent – Company only for non-payment of the disputed supplementary bill. However, this permanent injunction would not be applicable, if in future, the respondent – Company or its officers or servants indulge in theft of electricity. First Appeal No.6358 of 1999 is hereby dismissed. The judgment and decree passed in Special Civil Suit No.232 of 1997 is hereby confirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs in both the appeals. The separate decree be drawn in each appeal. Along with the copy of this judgment and decree, Record and Proceedings be sent back to the learned Trial Court forthwith.