Sdo (Op) Sub Division No 2, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Anr. Vs Santosh and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sdo (Op) Sub Division No 2, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Anr. Vs Santosh and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second appeal allowed; suit of respondent No.1-plaintiff dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction; respondent No.1-plaintiff at liberty to take recourse to the appropriate available remedy in accordance with law; evidence/observations in the impugned judgments and decrees not to operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings; pending application(s), if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in view of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, in the suit out of which this second appeal arises.

Court's answer

In view of the Division Bench decision in RSA-4181-2016, 'Mahesh Kumar vs. Sub Divisional Officer and Another' (judgment dated 14.05.2025), settling that Civil Court jurisdiction is barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the present second appeal is allowed and the suit filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff stands dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction.

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.1-plaintiff is at liberty to take recourse to the appropriate remedy available, in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

Evidence recorded and observations made in the impugned judgments and decrees shall not operate as res judicata in any subsequent proceedings initiated by respondent No.1-plaintiff.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Nidhi Gupta J., oral), Regular Second Appeal No.992 of 2022 (O&M), decided 15.07.2025. Appeal by S.D.O. (OP), Sub Division No.2, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Kaithal (appellants/defendants) against the concurrent findings of the Courts below decreeing respondent No.1 Santosh's suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Learned counsel submitted that the question of law — whether Civil Court jurisdiction is barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 — had since been decided by the 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, the second appeal was allowed and the suit dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction; respondent No.1-plaintiff was left at liberty to pursue the appropriate available remedy; evidence recorded and observations made in the impugned judgments and decrees were declared not to operate as res judicata in any subsequent proceedings; pending applications, if any, were disposed of.

RSA-992-2022 (O & M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

110

Regular Second Appeal No.992 of 2022 (O & M) Date of decision :-15.07.2025

S.D.O. (OP), Sub Division No.2, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Kaithal and another

…..Appellants

Versus

Santosh and another

…..Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:Mr. Surinder K. Mahajan, A d vocate for the appellants.

None for the respondents.

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

The appellants/defendants h ave filed the present appeal against t h e concurrent findings of the le a rned Courts below whereby the suit filed by respondent No.1/pl a intiff for declaration and permane n t injunction has been decreed. 2. At the very outset, learne d counsel for the appellants submits t h at the question of law involve d in the present appeal as to whether j urisdiction of the Civil Court i s barred in view of Section 145 of t h e Electricity Act, 2003, has since been decided by the Hon’ble D ivision Bench of this Court i n RSA-4181-2016 , titled as ‘Mahesh Kumar vs. Sub Divisional Officer and Another’ vide

judgment dated 14.05.2025.

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.16 19.35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA-992-2022 (O & M) 2

In view of the above, th e present second appeal is allowed, and the suit filed by the resp o ndent No.1-plaintiff stands dismisse d on the ground of jurisdictio n . However, the respondent No.1-pla i ntiff is at liberty to take recour s e to the appropriate remedy as availa b le, in accordance with law.

It is made clear that any ev i dence recorded/observations made in t he impugned judgments and d ecrees would not operate as res judic a ta in any subsequent proceedin g s initiated by the respondent No.1-pla i ntiff.

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

July 15, 2 025 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE

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

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.16 19.35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document