The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a revision petition seeking to set aside an impugned order where a learned Civil Judge dismissed an application to treat lack of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue in a suit challenging recovery of electricity dues.
None.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Revision No.190 of 2011 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.190 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 13, 2011
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others
.....Petitioners
v.
Mange Ram
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
C.M.No.776-CII of 2011
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
C.R.No.190 of 2011
The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 11.10.2010, Annexure P3, vide which application for dismissal of suit/rejection of the plaint due to not maintainable treating as preliminary issue, on the point of jurisdiction was dismissed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Loharu.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Loharu.
Facts relevant for the purpose of decision of present revision petition are that a notice was issued by the present petitioners to respondentplaintiff for recovery of Rs.38,89,454/- in respect of electricity connection No.BH41-001. However, the said notice was challenged by respondentplaintiff in the present suit, in which objection was taken on behalf of the
Civil Revision No.190 of 2011 (O&M)
-2-
present petitioners that civil Court has got no jurisdiction on the plea that special Courts were constituted under Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter to be referred as the `Act'). The request of the petitioner was not acceded to by learned trial Court and the application for treating the issue regarding jurisdiction as preliminary issue was dismissed vide impugned order.
Section 153 of the Act is reproduced by petitioner in his petition, which reads as under:-
“Part-XV
Special Courts
A bare perusal of the aforementioned Section shows that the Special Courts were constituted for trial of offences referred to in Sections 135 to 140 and Section 150 of the Act. He has failed to show this Court any provision in the said Act, which bars jurisdiction of Civil Court to challenge demand/recovery of electricity dues from a consumer. Hence, learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that jurisdiction of Civil Court is not barred to entertain the suit disputing the payments claimed by petitioner from the consumer regarding electricity dues.
Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.
Law is well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.
Civil Revision No.190 of 2011 (O&M)
-3-
Hence,the present revision petition is hereby dismissed, being devoid of any merit.
13.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging a demand/recovery of electricity dues.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and othersReferred¶29
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others
Mange Ram
RAM CHAND GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
