DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM SUB DIVISION MARUTI AND ANR v. PADAM SINGH
RSA/232/2021 · 2026-07-28
Vikas Suri
body2021
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2021 DAILYLAW 2544 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2021 DAILYLAW 2544 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
331
RSA-232-2021 (O&M)
Date of decision: 28.07.2026
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another ...Appellants
Versus
Padam Singh ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present: Mr. Madhur Singh, Advocate for the appellants.
***** VIKAS SURI, J.
1.
The defendant-appellants/Nigam in the present Regular Second Appeal have challenged the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2019, passed by the First Appellate Court, whereby its appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2017, passed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, was affirmed.
2.
At the outset, learned counsel for the defendant-appellants has submitted that the question of law involved in the present appeal, as to whether 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 vide judgment dated 14.05.2025 passed in Mahesh Kumar Versus Sub Divisional Officer and another, 2025(3) RCR (Civil) 303.
3.
Mr. D.S. Gandhi, Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf of SUMIT KUMAR 2026.07.29 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this
order/judgment
RSA-232-2021 -2-
the respondent and has filed his memo of appearance in Court, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent does not dispute the law settled in Mahesh Kumar’s case (supra).
4.
In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed, and the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent stands dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. However, the plaintiff-respondent would be at liberty to avail the remedies as available in law.
5.
It is made clear that any evidence recorded/observations made in the impugned judgments and decrees would not operate as res judicata in any subsequent proceedings initiated by the plaintiff-respondent.
6.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(VIKAS SURI) July 28, 2026 JUDGE sumit.k
Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes / No
Whether Reportable :
Yes / No SUMIT KUMAR 2026.07.29 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this
order/judgment