Dhbvn Panchkula and Another Vs Basic India Ltd. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Dhbvn Panchkula and Another Vs Basic India Ltd. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second appeal allowed; first appeal filed by Basic India Ltd. dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction; respondent at liberty to pursue the appropriate available remedy in accordance with law; evidence/observations in the decree dated 25.11.2019 not to operate as res judicata in future proceedings.

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

The question of law involved in the present appeal, namely whether the 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 of this Court in Mahesh Kumar vs. Sub Divisional Officer and Another (RSA-4181-2016), vide judgment dated 14.05.2025.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the Division Bench ruling, the present second appeal is allowed and the first appeal filed by the respondent (appellant before the learned first Appellate Court) stands dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction.

Key takeaways

The respondent is at liberty to take recourse to the appropriate remedy as available, in accordance with law.ratio¶21
It is made clear that any evidence recorded or observations made in the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.11.2019 would not operate as res judicata in any subsequent proceedings initiated by the respondent.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Nidhi Gupta J., oral) allows DHBVN Panchkula's Regular Second Appeal No. 967 of 2021 following the Division Bench decision in Mahesh Kumar vs. Sub Divisional Officer and Another, RSA-4181-2016 (judgment dated 14.05.2025), holding the present appeal covered on the question whether the Civil Court's jurisdiction is barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The first appeal allowed by the Additional District Judge, Jind on 25.11.2019 (against the Civil Judge, Safidon decree dated 19.12.2016) is dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction; Basic India Ltd. is left free to take recourse to the appropriate available remedy, and the evidence/observations in the impugned decree are directed not to operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings.

RSA-967-2021 (O & M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

109

Regular Second Appeal No. 9 67 of 2021 (O & M) Date of decision :-16.07.2025

DHBVN Panchkula and another

…..Appellants

Versus

Basic India Ltd.

…..Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:Mr. Nikhil Chopra, Advocat e with Mr. Shubham, Advocate for the appellants.

None for the respondent.

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

The appellants/defendants h ave filed the present appeal against t h e judgment and decree date d 25.11.2019 passed by the learned A dditional District Judge, Jind w hereby the appeal filed by the resp o ndent/appellant-Basic India Lt d . against the judgment and decree d a ted 19.12.2016 passed by the le a rned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Safidon, h as been allowed. 2. At the very outset, learne d counsel for the appellants (respond e nts before the first Appella t e Court) submits that the question of law involved in the pre s ent appeal as to whether jurisdicti o n of the Civil Court is barred i n view of Section 145 of the Electricit y Act, 2003, has since been dec i ded by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in RSA-4181-2016 , t itled as ‘Mahesh Kumar vs.

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.17 09.26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA-967-2021 (O & M)

2

Sub Divisional Officer and Another’ vide judgment dated

14.05.20 2 5.

In view of the above, th e present second appeal is allowed, and the first appeal filed by the respondent herein (appellant before t h e learned first Appellate Cou r t) stands dismissed on the ground o f jurisdiction. However, the res p ondent herein is at liberty to take recourse to the appropriate remed y as available, in accordance with law.

It is made clear that any ev i dence recorded/observations made in t he impugned judgment and de c ree dated 25.11.2019 would not oper a te as res judicata in any subseq u ent proceedings initiated by the respo n dent herein.

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

July 16, 2 025 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE

Whether sp e aking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Re p ortable Yes / No

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.17 09.26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document