Uhbvnl and Others Vs Ram Niwas — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Uhbvnl and Others Vs Ram Niwas — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appellants' Regular Second Appeal allowed; plaintiff-respondent's suit dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction (Section 145, Electricity Act, 2003); plaintiff-respondent granted liberty to avail remedies available in law; evidence/observations in the impugned judgments and decrees not to operate as res judicata in 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

Accepting the settled Division Bench conclusion in Mahesh Kumar (RSA-4181-2016, decided 14.05.2025) that Civil Court jurisdiction is barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the present appeal is allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent is dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction.

Ratio / Principle

Despite dismissal of the suit on the jurisdiction ground, the plaintiff-respondent is granted liberty to avail the remedies available in law.

Key takeaways

Any evidence recorded and observations made in the impugned judgments and decrees will not operate as res judicata in any subsequent proceedings initiated by the plaintiff-respondent.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

RSA-277-2023 (O&M), High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh (Deepak Gupta, J., oral, decided 01.07.2025) — ALLOWED. Defendants-appellants (UHBVN and Others) challenged the First Appellate Court's judgment and decree affirming the Trial Court decree in favour of plaintiff Ram Niwas. Relying on the Hon'ble Division Bench judgment in Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer and Another, RSA-4181-2016 (dated 14.05.2025), which decided the question of law that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground of jurisdiction. The plaintiff-respondent (served through his wife and proceeded ex parte) retains liberty to pursue other lawful remedies; evidence recorded and observations made in the impugned judgments and decrees will not operate as res judicata in any subsequent proceedings. Pending applications disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

266 RSA-277-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision.:01.07.2025

UHBVN and Others Appellants

Vs.

Ram Niwas

Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present: Mr. Madhur Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

None for the respondent.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The defendants-appellants are in present Regular Second Appeal, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court whereby their appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the plain�ff-respondent was affirmed.

At the outset, learned counsel for the defendants-appellants has submi�ed that the ques�on of law involved in the present appeal as to whether jurisdic�on of the Civil Court is barred in view of Sec�on 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, has since been decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in RSA-4181-2016, �tled as ‘Mahesh Kumar Versus Sub Divisional Officer and Another’ vide judgment dated 14.05.2025.

As per the Office report, the respondent stands duly served through his wife, which is valid service in the eyes of law.

However nobody is pu�ng appearance on behalf of the respondent. As such, respondent is hereby proceeded ex parte .

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.02 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA-277-2023 (O&M)

-2-

In view thereof, the present appeal is allowed, and the suit filed by the plain�ff-respondent stands dismissed on the ground of jurisdic�on. However, the plain�ff-respondent would have the liberty to avail the remedies as available in law.

It is made clear that any evidence recorded/observa�ons made in the impugned judgments and decrees would not operate as res judicata in any subsequent proceedings ini�ated by the plain�ff-respondent.

Pending applica�ons, if any, also stands disposed off.

( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE

July 01, 2025

Nee�ka Tuteja

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.02 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document