Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Vs Gurmeet Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Vs Gurmeet Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second appeal allowed; the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff stands dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction (Civil Court jurisdiction barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, per the Division Bench ruling in RSA-4181-2016, Mahesh Kumar vs. Sub Divisional Officer and Another, dated 14.05.2025). Respondent-plaintiff at liberty to take recourse to the appropriate remedy in accordance with law; evidence/observations in the impugned judgments and decrees not to operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings; pending applications disposed of; Registry directed to send a copy of the order by Regd. Post to the respondent-plaintiff.

Issue for consideration

Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in view of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 — framed as the question of law involved in the present second appeal, and stated to stand 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).

Court's answer

In view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in RSA-4181-2016 ('Mahesh Kumar vs. Sub Divisional Officer and Another', dated 14.05.2025) deciding the question of law regarding bar of Civil Court jurisdiction under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the present second appeal is allowed and the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff stands dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction.

Key takeaways

The respondent-plaintiff is at liberty to take recourse to the appropriate remedy as available, in accordance with law.obiter¶13
It is made clear that any evidence recorded and observations made in the impugned judgments and decrees would not operate as res judicata in any subsequent proceedings initiated by the respondent-plaintiff.obiter¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal (RSA) — Suit for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction filed by respondent-plaintiff decreed by courts below with concurrent findings — Question of law as to bar of Civil Court jurisdiction under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 — Stated to stand decided by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in RSA-4181-2016, 'Mahesh Kumar vs. Sub Divisional Officer and Another' (judgment dated 14.05.2025) — In view thereof, second appeal allowed and respondent-plaintiff's suit dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction — Liberty reserved to plaintiff to pursue appropriate remedy in accordance with law — Evidence recorded/observations in impugned judgments and decrees not to operate as res judicata in any subsequent proceedings.

RSA-654-2020 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE H I GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

255 RS A -654-2020 (O&M)

Dat e of Decision: 30.10.2025

Uttar Hary a na Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. .… Appellant

Versus

Gurmeet S i ngh .... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present: - Mr. RS Longia, Advocate for the appellant.

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The appellant-defendant is in second appeal against the concurrent findings rendered by both the C ourt below whereby the suit for declaratio n with consequential relief of m a ndatory injunction filed by the responden t -plaintiff was decreed.

At the very outset, learned c o unsel for the appellant submits that the q u estion of law involved in the present appeal as to whether jurisdictio n of the Civil Court is barred i n view of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, has since been de c ided by the Hon’ble Division Bench of t his Court in RSA-4181-2016 , titled as ‘Mahesh Kumar vs. Sub Divisional Officer and Another’ vid e judgment dated 14.05.2025. 3. In view of the above, the pr e sent second appeal is allowed, and the s u it filed by the respondent-pla i ntiff stands dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. However, the res p ondent-plaintiff is at liberty to take recou r se to the appropriate remedy as available, in accordance with law.

RISHU KATARIA 2025.10.31 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

RSA-654-2020 (O&M) -2-

It is made clear that any e vidence recorded/observations made in t h e impugned judgments and de c rees would not operate as res judicata i n any subsequent proceedings initiated by the respondentplaintiff.

Pending application(s), if any , shall stands disposed of. 6. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order by Regd. Post to the respondent-plaintiff, namely, G urmeet Singh S/o Puran Singh at the addr e ss mentioned in the Memo of Parties.

30.10.2025 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

RISHU KATARIA 2025.10.31 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.