Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


RAMESH KUMAR v. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED - RSA-2390-2005 [2005] RD-P&H 33 (1 July 2005)

Regular Second Appeal No.2390 of 2005 1

Ramesh Kumar v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited ...

Present: None for the appellant.



This is defendant's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, `the Code') challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the plaintiff-respondent, namely, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for brevity, `BSNL') is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.42,900/- from the defendant-appellant with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit till realisation. It has been concurrently found that the defendant-appellant has been the consumer of BSNL as telephone No.30824 was provided to him on 24.5.1990 and has been using the service of the plaintiff-respondent BSNL. It has also come on record that the defendant-appellant has failed to make the payment of five bills dated 11.1.1995, 11.3.1995, 11.5.1995, 11.7.1995 and 11.11.1994. In that regard reliance has been placed by the plaintiff-respondent on Exs.P8/A, P8/B, P9 and P10. The statement of account Exs.P11 and P13 were also produced showing that the defendant- appellant was in arrears of Rs.42,900/-. The plaintiff-respondent also produced two witnesses and both the Courts below after considering whole evidence of the plaintiff- Regular Second Appeal No.2390 of 2005 2

respondent as well as the defendant-appellant has concluded that a sum of Rs.42,900/- has been due towards the defendant-appellant at the time of filing the suit on account of the bills and the cost of telephone instrument.

Having perused the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below, I am of the considered view that there is hardly any room to interfere in the findings of facts which are based on unimpeachable evidence of the plaintiff-respondent BSNL. The defendant-appellant had obtained telephone connection being telephone No.30824. The bills have been found to be due as per the official record which is amply proved before the Courts below. No question of law warranting interference of this Court under Section 100 of the Code has arisen which is a sine qua non for admission of a second appeal. Therefore, the instant appeal is without merit and is liable to be dismissed.

For the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

In view of the fact that I have dismissed the appeal on merits, therefore, no orders are required to be passed on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of 11 days delay in filing of the appeal and under Section 151 of the Code seeking 54 days delay in refiling of the appeal.


July 8, 2005. JUDGE

Regular Second Appeal No.2390 of 2005 3



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.