Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Anf Ors. Vs Saurabh Vashisht — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Anf Ors. Vs Saurabh Vashisht — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second appeal allowed; respondent/plaintiff's suit (declaration, mandatory injunction, permanent injunction) dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction (bar under Section 145, Electricity Act, 2003); respondent at liberty to pursue the appropriate available remedy; evidence/observations in the impugned judgments and decrees to have no res judicata effect in future proceedings; pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in view of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 — a question of law said to stand already decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Mahesh Kumar vs. Sub Divisional Officer and Another (judgment dated 14.05.2025).

Court's answer

Acting on the position that the question whether Civil Court jurisdiction is barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 stands decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Mahesh Kumar (judgment dated 14.05.2025), and with no objection from the respondent's counsel, the present second appeal is disposed of in terms of that judgment.

Ratio / Principle

The present second appeal is allowed and the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff stands dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction.

Key takeaways

The respondent/plaintiff is at liberty to take recourse to the appropriate remedy available, in accordance with law.ratio¶18
Any evidence recorded and observations made in the impugned judgments and decrees shall not operate as res judicata in any subsequent proceedings initiated by the respondent/plaintiff.ratio¶18
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Nidhi Gupta J., oral), 11.07.2025 — Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. (appellants/defendants) v. Saurabh Vashist (respondent/plaintiff), RSA-1096-2021 (O&M): The respondent's suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction had been decreed by the Courts below with concurrent findings. At the outset, the appellants' counsel submitted that the question of law — whether Civil Court jurisdiction is barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 — stood decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in 'Mahesh Kumar vs. Sub Divisional Officer and Another' (RSA-41812016, judgment dated 14.05.2025); counsel for the respondent did not dispute this and raised no objection to disposal in terms of that judgment. Accordingly, the second appeal was allowed and the suit dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction; the respondent was left at liberty to take recourse to the appropriate remedy in accordance with law; it was made clear that evidence recorded/observations made in the impugned judgments and decrees would not operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings; pending applications were disposed of.

RSA-1096-2021 (O & M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

105

Regular Second Appeal No.1096 of 2021 (O & M) Date of decision :-11.07.2025

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others

…..Appellants

Versus

Saurabh Vashist

…..Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:Mr. Surinder K. Mahajan, A d vocate for the appellants.

Mr. Mithun, Advocate for Mr. Abhishek Jindal, Advoc a te for the respondent.

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

The appellants/defendants h ave filed the present appeal against t h e concurrent findings of the le a rned Courts below whereby the suit f iled by the respondent/plaintif f for declaration, mandatory injunctio n and permanent injunction has b een decreed. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for appellant s /defendants submits that the q u estion of law involved in the present a p peal as to whether jurisdiction o f the Civil Court is barred in view of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, has since been decided b y the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in RSA-41812016 , tit l ed as ‘Mahesh Kumar vs. Sub Divisional Officer and Another’ vide judgment dated 14.05.202 5 .

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.11 17.02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2

RSA-1096-2021 (O & M)

Learned counsel for the r e spondent/plaintiff does not dispute t h e aforesaid factual and legal po s ition and submits that he has ‘no obje c tion’, in case, the present sec o nd appeal is disposed of, in terms of judgment dated 14.05.2025 (sup r a). 4. In view of the above, th e present second appeal is allowed, and the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff stands dismisse d on the ground of j u risdiction. However, the responde n t/plaintiff is at liberty to take recourse to the appropriate remedy a s available, in accordance with l a w. 5. It is made clear that any ev i dence recorded/observations made in t he impugned judgments and d ecrees would not operate as res judi c ata in any subsequent pr o ceedings initiated by the responde n t/plaintiff. 6. Pending application(s), if an y , shall stands disposed of.

Whether sp e aking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Re p ortable Yes / No

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.11 17.02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document