Sub Divisional Officer, Dhbvnl and Anr. Vs Anil Kumar Gupta — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sub Divisional Officer, Dhbvnl and Anr. Vs Anil Kumar Gupta — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; suit of the plaintiff-respondent dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction (Civil Court jurisdiction barred under Section 145, Electricity Act, 2003); plaintiff-respondent at liberty to avail the remedies available in law; evidence/observations in the impugned judgments and decrees not to operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings; 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

Since the question whether Civil Court jurisdiction is barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 stands decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench in RSA-4181-2016 (Mahesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Officer & Anr.) - a position counsel for the plaintiff-respondent did not dispute - the appeal is allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent stands dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction.

Ratio / Principle

Application CM-13688-C-2019 seeking condonation of delay of 32 days in filing the appeal is allowed and the delay of 32 days is condoned.

Key takeaways

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; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Alka Sarin, J.) allowed RSA-4809-2019 (O&M) filed by Sub Divisional Officer, DHBVNL & Anr. against the decree in favour of Anil Kumar Gupta. After condoning a 32-day delay in filing (CM-13688-C-2019), the Court noted that the question whether Civil Court jurisdiction is barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 had been decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench in RSA-4181-2016 [Mahesh Kumar Versus Sub Divisional Officer & Anr.] (judgment dated 14.05.2025), which counsel for the plaintiff-respondent did not dispute. Acting in view of that ruling, the appeal was allowed and the suit dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction, with liberty to the plaintiff-respondent to avail the remedies available in law; evidence recorded and observations made in the impugned judgments and decrees were directed not to operate as res judicata in any subsequent proceedings, and pending applications were disposed of.

104

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA-4809-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision : 13.11.2025

Sub Divisional Officer, DHBVNL & Anr ... Appellant(s)

Versus

Anil Kumar Gupta ... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present : Mr. S.K. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

CM-13688-C-2019

For the reasons mentioned therein, the application seeking condonation of delay of 32 days in filing the appeal is allowed and the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

RSA-4809-2019

The defendant-appellants are in 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 plaintiff-respondent was affirmed.

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

YOGESH SHARMA 2025.11.14 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgment/order. Chandigarh

2

RSA-4809-2019 (O&M)

of this Court in RSA-4181-2016 [Mahesh Kumar Versus Sub Divisional Officer & Anr.] vide judgment dated 14.05.2025.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent does not dispute this factual position.

In view thereof, the present appeal is allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent stands dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. However, the plaintiff-respondent 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.

13.11.2025 ( ALKA SARIN ) Yogesh Sharma JUDGE

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

YOGESH SHARMA 2025.11.14 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgment/order. Chandigarh