Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Another Vs Inderjeet and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Another Vs Inderjeet and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; suit filed by plaintiff-respondent No.1 dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction; liberty granted to the plaintiff-respondent to avail remedies available in law; evidence/observations in the impugned judgments and decrees not to operate as res judicata; 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.

Court's answer

In view of the Division Bench decision in Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer & Anr. (RSA-4181-2016), the appeal is allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 stands dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction (Civil Court jurisdiction barred under Section 145, Electricity Act, 2003).

Ratio / Principle

The plaintiff-respondent No.1 is granted liberty to avail the remedies as available in law.

Key takeaways

Any evidence recorded or observations made in the impugned judgments and decrees shall not operate as res judicata in any subsequent proceedings initiated by the plaintiff-respondent.ratio¶20
Delay in filing the present appeal is condoned (CM-648-C-2024 allowed).¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal (RSA-193-2024 O&M) by Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Anr. against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, whereby respondent No.1's suit was decreed. The question of law pressed was whether the Civil Court's jurisdiction is barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which, as submitted, stood decided by the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer & Anr., RSA-4181-2016 (judgment dated 14.05.2025). Relying thereon, Alka Sarin, J. allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit on the ground of jurisdiction, with liberty to respondent No.1 to pursue other remedies, clarifying that no evidence or observation in the impugned judgments would operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings. Delay in filing was condoned (CM-648-C-2024).

221-27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA-193-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 01.08.2025

DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM & ANR ... Appellant(s)

Versus

INDERJEET & ANR ... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present: Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.K. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant(s).

None for respondent No.1.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

CM-648-C-2024

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of in filing the present appeal is condoned.

RSA-193-2024 (O&M)

The defendant-appellants are in the present Regular Second Appeal, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court decreeing the suit of the defendant-respondent No.1 and the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court whereby the appeal filed by the defendant-appellants was dismissed.

At the outset, learned counsel for the defendant-appellants has submitted that the question of law involved in the present appeal as to whether jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in view of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, has since been decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in RSA-4181-2016 titled as “ Mahesh Kumar Versus

RSA-193-2024 -2-

Sub Divisional Officer & Anr.” vide judgment dated 14.05.2025.

None has put in appearance on behalf of the contesting respondent No.1.

In view thereof, the present appeal is allowed, and the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 stands dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. However, the plaintiff-respondent No.1 would have the liberty to avail the remedies as available in law.

It is made clear that any evidence recorded/observations made in the impugned judgments and decrees would not operate as res judicata in any subsequent proceedings initiated by the plaintiff-respondent. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

01.08.2025 ( ALKA SARIN ) jk JUDGE

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

JITENDER KUMAR 2025.08.06 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh