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

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs Rekha Rani — 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 at liberty to pursue appropriate remedy in accordance with law; evidence/observations in the impugned judgments and decrees not to operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings.

Issue for consideration

Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in view of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, in the context of the suit challenging the demand notices and recovery of electricity charges and compounding fee.

Court's answer

In view of the Division Bench decision in RSA-4181-2016 (Mahesh Kumar vs. Sub Divisional Officer and Another, dated 14.05.2025) on the bar of Civil Court jurisdiction under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the second appeal is allowed and the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff 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 or observations made in the impugned judgments and decrees would not operate as res judicata in any subsequent proceedings initiated by the respondent-plaintiff.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second appeal (RSA-525-2020 (O&M)), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 12.08.2025 by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta (oral). Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (appellant-defendant) v. Rekha Rani (respondent-plaintiff). Both Courts below had concurrently decreed the plaintiff's suit declaring demand notices vide memos no.1033 and 1034 dated 05.07.2017 and LL-I report dated 01.07.2017 illegal, null and void, and restraining recovery of Rs.82,464/- as electricity charges and Rs.10,000/- as compounding fee and disconnection of connection No.KZ28/1887. On counsel's submission that the question whether Civil Court jurisdiction is barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 stands decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in RSA-4181-2016, 'Mahesh Kumar vs. Sub Divisional Officer and Another' (judgment dated 14.05.2025), the Court allowed the second appeal and dismissed the suit on the ground of jurisdiction, leaving the plaintiff free to pursue the appropriate remedy in accordance with law, and clarifying that evidence/observations in the impugned judgments and decrees would not operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings.

SUNENA RSA-525-2020 (O&M) -1- 2025.08.18 10:07

254 RSA-525-2020 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 12.08.2025

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.

.… Appellant

Versus

Rekha Rani .... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present: - Mr. R.S. Longia, Advocate for the appellant.

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The appellant-defendant is in second appeal against the concurrent findings rendered by both the Courts below whereby the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff, for declaration to the effect that the demand notices vide memos no.1033 and 1034 dated 05.07.2017 and LL-I report dated 01.07.2017 are totally illegal, null and void, arbitrary; and further decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovering the amount of Rs.82,464/- as electricity charges and Rs.10,000/as compounding fee except the current electricity charges consumed by the plaintiff and also restraining the defendants forever from disconnecting the electricity supply of connection bearing No.KZ28/1887 of the premises of the plaintiff, was 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

RSA-525-2020 (O&M) -2-

Bench of this Court in RSA-4181-2016 , titled as ‘Mahesh Kumar vs. 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.

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 respondent-plaintiff.

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

12.08.2025 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) sunena JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No