Sdo (Op) Sub Division, Uhbvnl Indri District Karnal Vs Hisam Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sdo (Op) Sub Division, Uhbvnl Indri District Karnal Vs Hisam Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second appeal allowed; suit of respondent-plaintiff dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction; respondent-plaintiff left at liberty to pursue the appropriate remedy in accordance with law; evidence/observations in the impugned judgments and decrees not to operate as res judicata in any subsequent proceedings; pending applications, if any, 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 RSA-4181-2016 (Mahesh Kumar vs. Sub Divisional Officer and Another), wherein the question of law that Civil Court jurisdiction is barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was decided, this Court allowed the second appeal and the respondent-plaintiff's suit stands dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction.

Ratio / Principle

The respondent-plaintiff is at liberty to take recourse to the appropriate remedy as available, in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

Any evidence recorded/observations made in the impugned judgments and decrees shall not operate as res judicata in any subsequent proceedings initiated by the respondent-plaintiff.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal (Punjab & Haryana) — Suit for declaration and permanent injunction by respondent-plaintiff decreed by both Courts below — Question of law raised: whether Civil Court jurisdiction is barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 — Counsel for appellant pointed out that this question stands decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Mahesh Kumar vs. Sub Divisional Officer and Another, RSA-4181-2016, judgment dated 14.05.2025 — Following that decision, the second appeal was allowed and the plaintiff's suit dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction, with liberty reserved to the plaintiff to pursue the appropriate alternative remedy in accordance with law — Clarified that evidence recorded and observations made in the impugned judgments and decrees shall not operate as res judicata in any subsequent proceedings — Pending applications disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

217

RSA No. 2632 of 2019 (O&M) DECIDED ON: 25^th July, 2025

S.D.O. ‘‘Op’’ Sub Division UHBVNL, Indri District Karnal.

.....Appellant

VERSUS

Hisam Singh

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA.

Present: Mr. Kewal Krishan, Advocate for Mr. S.K. Mahajan, Advocate for appellant.

NIDHI GUPTA., J (ORAL)

The appellant/defendant has filed the present appeal against the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction has been decreed.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits 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 Kumarvs. Sub Divisional Officer and Another’ vide judgment dated 14.05.2025.

In view of the above, the present second appeal is allowed, and the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff stands dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. However, the respondent-plaintiff is at liberty to take recourse to the appropriate remedy as available, in accordance with law.

REEMA SAINI 2025.07.25 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

RSA No. 2632 of 2019 (O&M)

-2-

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 respondentplaintiff.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of.

25^thJuly, 2025 reema	(NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

REEMA SAINI 2025.07.25 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh