Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs Bhateri Devi — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs Bhateri Devi — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second appeal allowed; judgment and decree dated 30.9.2019 of the first Appellate Court set aside; suit of the respondent-plaintiff dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction; respondent-plaintiff at liberty to take recourse to the appropriate remedy as available in accordance with law; evidence recorded/observations made in the impugned judgments and decrees not to operate as res judicata in any subsequent proceedings.

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

The present second appeal is allowed; the judgment and decree dated 30.9.2019 passed by the first Appellate Court is set aside, and the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff stands dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction.

Key takeaways

Any evidence recorded/observations made in the impugned judgments and decrees would not operate as res judicata in any subsequent proceedings initiated by the respondent-plaintiff.obiter¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Smt. Bhateri Devi, Regular Second Appeal No.2449 of 2023 (O & M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Nidhi Gupta, J., oral), decided 13.11.2025. UHBVNL (appellant/defendant) appealed against the first Appellate Court's judgment and decree dated 30.09.2019, which had set aside the decree dated 14.8.2017 of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sonipat, whereby the respondent/plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction had been partly decreed. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the question of law involved — whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in view of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 — had since been decided by the Division Bench of the Court in 'Mahesh Kumar vs. Sub Divisional Officer and Another' (RSA-4181-2016, judgment dated 14.05.2025). After hearing counsel, notice of motion was dispensed with; the appeal was allowed, the first appellate court's judgment and decree dated 30.9.2019 were set aside, and the respondent-plaintiff's suit was dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction, with liberty to her to take recourse to the appropriate remedy as available in accordance with law, and a clarification that evidence recorded/observations made in the impugned judgments and decrees would not operate as res judicata in any subsequent proceedings. Delay of 725 days in refiling the appeal was condoned (CM-8238-C-2023); CM-8237-C-2023 allowed as prayed for.

RSA-2449-2023 (O & M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

120

Regular Second Appeal No.2449 of 2023 (O & M) Date of decision :-13.11.2025

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited

…..Appellant

Versus

Smt. Bhateri Devi

…..Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:Mr. Ankit Midha, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

CM-8237-C-2023

Allowed as prayed for.

CM-8238-C-2023

Prayer in this application is f o r condonation of delay of 725

days in re f iling the present appeal.

For the reasons mentioned i n the application, the same is allowed a nd the delay of 725 days in r efiling the present appeal is condoned.

The application stands dispose d of.

CM-8239-C-2023 in/and RSA-2449-2023

The appellant/defendant has fi led the present second appeal against th e judgment and decree dated 30. 0 9.2019 passed by the learned first App e llate Court, whereby the judgme n t and decree dated 14.8.2017 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judg e (Sr. Divn.), Sonipat, whereby

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.11.14 09.35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2

RSA-2449-2023 (O & M)

the suit f iled by the respondent/plaintiff f or permanent injunction was partly dec r eed, has been set aside.

At the very outset, learned co u nsel for the appellant submits that the q uestion of law involved in the present appeal as to whether jurisdictio n of the Civil Court is barred i n view of Section 145 of the Electricit y Act, 2003, has since been dec i ded by the Hon’ble Division Bench of t his Court in RSA-4181-2016 , titl e d as ‘Mahesh Kumar vs. Sub

Divisional Officer and Another’ vide judg m ent dated 14.05.2025.

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, issuance of notice of motion is dispensed with at this stage, as it will cause further delay in d i sposal of the case.

In view of the facts mentio n ed above, the present second appeal is allowed, and judgment and decree dated 30.9.2019 passed by the first App e llate Court is set aside and the suit filed by the respondentplaintiff s tands dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. However, the responde n t-plaintiff is at liberty to take rec o urse to the appropriate remedy as availab l e, in accordance with law.

It is made clear that any e v idence recorded/observations made in t he impugned judgments and dec r ees would not operate as res judicata i n any subsequent proceedings initiated by the respondentplaintiff.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. 7. The Registry is directed to s e nd a copy of this order to the responde n t herein through Registerd Post at h er address as mentioned in the

Memo of P arties. Novembe r 13, 2025 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE

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

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.11.14 09.35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document