Sdo (Op) Uhbvnl Vs M/S Ujala Bhatta , M.P Majra — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sdo (Op) Uhbvnl Vs M/S Ujala Bhatta , M.P Majra — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second appeal allowed; suit of the respondent-plaintiff dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction; 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, if any, disposed of; Registry directed to send a copy of the order by Registered 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.

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 the question whether Civil Court jurisdiction is barred 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.

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 shall not operate as res judicata in any subsequent proceedings initiated by the respondent-plaintiff.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second appeal (RSA-1949-2024 O&M) by SDO (OP), Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the District Courts decreeing M/s Ujala Bhatta's suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. Accepting counsel's submission that the question of law — whether jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in view of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 — had been settled by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Mahesh Kumar vs. Sub Divisional Officer and Another (RSA-4181-2016, judgment dated 14.05.2025), Nidhi Gupta, J. allowed the second appeal and dismissed the suit on the ground of jurisdiction, leaving the respondent-plaintiff free to pursue the appropriate remedy; it was clarified that evidence recorded/observations made in the impugned judgments and decrees would not operate as res judicata in any subsequent proceedings.

RSA-1949-2024 (O&M)

-1-

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

278 RS A -1949-2024 (O&M)

Dat e of Decision: 28.01.2026

SDO (OP) Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nig a m Ltd. .… Appellant

Versus

M/s Ujala B hatta .... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present: - Mr. Madhur Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The appellant-defendant is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees render e d by both the District Courts whereby t h e suit for declaration with co n sequential relief of permanent injunction filed by the respondent-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.

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 2026.01.28 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

RSA-1949-2024 (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 through Registered Post to respondent-plaintiff/M / s Ujala Bhatta, at the address mentioned in the Memo of Parties.

28.01.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

RISHU KATARIA 2026.01.28 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.