IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 118 SDO (OP) Sub Cheeka, District Kaithal and another Suresh Pal and another CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) 1. against the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by consequential relief of 2. submits 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 in ‘Mahesh judgment dated 14.05.2025. RSA-1037-2022 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.1037 of 2022 Date of decision :-22.07.2025 SDO (OP) Sub-Division Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Cheeka, District Kaithal and another Versus Suresh Pal and another CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Surinder K. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants. None for respondent No.1. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) The appellants/defendants have against the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff consequential relief of permanent injunction has been At the very outset, learned counsel for 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 in ‘Mahesh Kumar vs. Sub Divisional Officer and Another judgment dated 14.05.2025. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.1037 of 2022 (O & M) .2025 Division Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam- …..Appellants …..Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Surinder K. Mahajan, Advocate have filed the present appeal against the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below whereby /plaintiff for declaration with permanent injunction has been decreed. outset, learned counsel for the appellants 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 in RSA-4181-2016, titled as Sub Divisional Officer and Another’ vide VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.24 17.29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3. allowed, dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. How plaintiff is at liberty to take recourse to the appropriate remedy as available, in accordance with 4. made in the impugned judgments and decrees would not operate as res judicata No.1-plaintiff 5. July 22, 202 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No RSA-1037-2022 (O & M) In view of the above, the present and the suit filed by respondent dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. How is at liberty to take recourse to the appropriate remedy as , in accordance with law. It is made clear that any evidence recorded/observations made in the impugned judgments and decrees would not operate as judicata in any subsequent proceedings initiated by plaintiff. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Reportable Yes / No 2 the present second appeal is and the suit filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff stands dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. However, respondent No.1- is at liberty to take recourse to the appropriate remedy as It is made clear that any evidence recorded/observations made in the impugned judgments and decrees would not operate as uent proceedings initiated by respondent Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.24 17.29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document