Madad Gaushala Vs Sdo Operation Sub Division Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Kalayat and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Madad Gaushala Vs Sdo Operation Sub Division Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Kalayat and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; the appeal was dismissed. Interim relief: delay of 270 days in refiling the appeal was condoned (CM-11790-C-2024 allowed). Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were directed to stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether, in a Regular Second Appeal governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, any ground exists to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of both Courts below dismissing the plaintiff's suit for declaration that the electricity bill amounting to Rs. 80,471/- is illegal.

Court's answer

No ground is made out to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below; accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

A Regular Second Appeal in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh is governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as held by a five-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika and Others, (2016) 6 SCC 157.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Anil Kshetarpal, J.), decision dated 04.02.2025 — Regular Second Appeal No. 2853 of 2024 (O&M): Madad Gaushala, Kalayat v. S.D.O. Operation, Sub Division, UHBVN, Kalayat and Others. The Court records that Regular Second Appeals in Punjab, Haryana and UT Chandigarh are governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, relying on the five-Judge Bench decision in Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika and Others, (2016) 6 SCC 157. The plaintiff-gaushala's suit for declaration that an electricity bill of Rs. 80,471/- was illegal stood dismissed by both Courts below on concurrent findings that the bill comprised electricity consumption dues, sundry charges and penalty payable as per law, the connection having been permanently disconnected for non-payment of consumption bills after March 2015. Finding no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, the Court dismissed the appeal; delay of 270 days in refiling was condoned (CM-11790-C-2024) and pending miscellaneous applications were directed to stand disposed of.

135

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

Regular Second Appeal No. 2853 of 2024 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 04.02.2025

Madad Gaushala, Kalayat

... Appellant(s)

Versus

S.D.O. Operation, Sub Division, UHBVN, Kalayat and Others

... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present: Mr. Chander Pal Tiwana, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the respondents.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

CM-11790-C-2024

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 270 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.

RSA-2853-2024

The Regular Second Appeal in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh is governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as held by a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika and Others (2016) 6 SCC 157 .

The plaintiff assails the concurrent findings of facts arrived at

by both the Courts below while dismissing its suit for the grant of DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2025.02.05 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Regular Second Appeal No. 2853 of 2024 (O&M) 2

declaration that the electricity bill amounting to ₹80,471/- is illegal. The defendants contested the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to pay the electricity consumption bill after March 2015, which ultimately led to the permanent disconnection of its electricity connection.

The bill is reflecting the arrears of the electricity consumption dues. Both the Courts below have found that the electricity bill is with respect to the electricity consumption dues, sundry charges and penalty which are payble as per law.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground is made out to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by both the Courts below. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.

The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge

February 04, 2025 “DK” Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2025.02.05 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document