RSA-687-2021 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 304 RSA-687-2021 Date of Decision: 15.07.2026 JAI CHAND GUPTA ......Appellant Vs. THE S.D.O. (OP) PALWAL DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHER .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present: Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Madhur Singh, Advocate for the respondents. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN J. (Oral) 1. The Trial Court decreed the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff, whereby the notice issued by the respondents - Nigam was on account of compounding charges claimed regarding theft of electricity. The first Appellate Court by passing the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.02.2020 allowed the appeal, reversed the finding of the trial Court and directed the trial Court to return the plaint for filing the same before the Special Court under Section 154(5) of Electricity Act. 2. The issue regarding bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in view of the provisions of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 stands settled by the larger Bench in Mahesh Kumar Vs. Sub Divisional Officer and another, 2025(3) RCR (Civil) 303. 3. In view of the above, present appeal filed on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff has no merits. POONAM RANI 2026.07.24 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-687-2021 -2- 4. However, the order passed by the first Appellate Court is modified to the extent that liberty is granted to the appellant-plaintiff to approach the competent authority under Section 154(5) of Electricity Act. The question of limitation would not come on the way of appellant-plaintiff. 5. Disposed of accordingly. 6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 15.07.2026 (HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN) P. Seth JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No POONAM RANI 2026.07.24 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document