RSA-2716-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 117 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Mahabir and another CORAM : HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL C.M No.9423-C The instant application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 31 days in f RSA No.2716 of 2025 (O&M) 1. The defendants are the appellants before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2019 passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit for declaration and permanent injuncti and the judgment dated 02.04.2025 passed by the learned 1 which the appeal preferred by them against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, has been dismissed. 2. In brief, the facts are that t for declaration to the effect that for the month of July 2016 is illegal, null and void and that 2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2716 Date of Decision: Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another Versus Mahabir and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Lekhraj Sharma, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) C of 2025 The instant application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 31 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 31 days in filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No.2716 of 2025 (O&M) The defendants are the appellants before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2019 passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondents and the judgment dated 02.04.2025 passed by the learned 1 which the appeal preferred by them against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, has been dismissed. In brief, the facts are that the respondents declaration to the effect that a sum of Rs.2,29,569/ for the month of July 2016 is illegal, null and void and that IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2716-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:11.08.2025 and another ... Appellants ... Respondents AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL , J. (ORAL) The instant application has been filed under Section 5 of the for condonation of delay of 31 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and iling the appeal is condoned. The defendants are the appellants before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2019 passed by the learned trial Court decreeing on filed by the respondents-plaintiffs and the judgment dated 02.04.2025 passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court vide which the appeal preferred by them against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, has been dismissed. respondents-plaintiffs had filed the sum of Rs.2,29,569/- added in the electricity for the month of July 2016 is illegal, null and void and that they are entitled to IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH The instant application has been filed under Section 5 of the For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and The defendants are the appellants before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2019 passed by the learned trial Court decreeing plaintiffs Appellate Court vide which the appeal preferred by them against the aforesaid judgment and decree filed the suit electricity bill are entitled to PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2716-2025 (O&M) deposit the current bill. A decree of against the appellants amount of Rs.2,29,569/ respondents-plaintiff. for storing vegetables and fruits and No.CC-21/0283 in NDS category with sanctioned load of 10 defendants. Respondent No.2/P from plaintiff N plaintiff No.2 outstanding against him. Rs.3,14,505/- for the month of July 2016 wherein Rs.2,29,569/ sundry charges. It has been stated that the said amount has been charged in an illegal manner as there prior to addition of the sum of Rs.2,29,569/ charges was issued. On receipt of appellants-defendants and asked for the details of amount added in the bill for month of July 2016 but aggrieved by afore plaintiffs. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing and raising preliminary suppression of material. premises of plaintiff N was sent to plaintiff N charges. The rest of the submissions as made in the plaint were denied. 2025 (O&M) -2- he current bill. A decree of permanent injunction ha appellants-defendants to restrain them from recovering the impugned amount of Rs.2,29,569/- and from disconnecting the electricity supply of the plaintiff. Respondent No.1/plaintiff N for storing vegetables and fruits and took an electric 21/0283 in NDS category with sanctioned load of 10 Respondent No.2/Plaintiff No.2 ha from plaintiff No.1 and used the same for storing bananas. 2 was regularly depositing the energy bills and nothing remain outstanding against him. Plaintiff No.2 had for the month of July 2016 wherein Rs.2,29,569/ sundry charges. It has been stated that the said amount has been charged in an illegal manner as there was nothing outstanding against plaintiff to addition of the sum of Rs.2,29,569/- charges was issued. On receipt of the said bill, defendants and asked for the details of amount added in the bill for ly 2016 but he was not supplied with the requisite de aggrieved by afore-mentioned factual scenario, the present suit was filed by the The suit was contested by the defendants by filing preliminary objections qua maintainability suppression of material. However, it was admitted that ses of plaintiff No.1. It was conceded that bill was sent to plaintiff No.2 wherein the sum of Rs.2,29,569/ charges. The rest of the submissions as made in the plaint were denied. permanent injunction had also been sought defendants to restrain them from recovering the impugned and from disconnecting the electricity supply of the Respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 had constructed a godown an electricity connection bearing account 21/0283 in NDS category with sanctioned load of 10 KWs from the o.2 had taken the said godown on rent the same for storing bananas. It was stated that regularly depositing the energy bills and nothing remain Plaintiff No.2 had received the electricity bill of for the month of July 2016 wherein Rs.2,29,569/- were charged as sundry charges. It has been stated that the said amount has been charged in an nothing outstanding against plaintiff No.2. No notice in the bill of July 2016 as sundry the said bill, plaintiff No.2 visited the office of defendants and asked for the details of amount added in the bill for not supplied with the requisite details. Being mentioned factual scenario, the present suit was filed by the The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement qua maintainability, cause of action and it was admitted that plaintiff No.2 used o.1. It was conceded that bill to the tune of Rs.3,14,505/ m of Rs.2,29,569/- were charged as sundry charges. The rest of the submissions as made in the plaint were denied. also been sought defendants to restrain them from recovering the impugned and from disconnecting the electricity supply of the constructed a godown ity connection bearing account from the godown on rent It was stated that regularly depositing the energy bills and nothing remained y bill of charged as sundry charges. It has been stated that the said amount has been charged in an notice of July 2016 as sundry o.2 visited the office of defendants and asked for the details of amount added in the bill for the tails. Being mentioned factual scenario, the present suit was filed by the written statement , cause of action and the 14,505/- were charged as sundry PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2716-2025 (O&M) 4. On the basis of pleadings, seven issues were framed trial Court including the issue of relief. support of his case and defendants examined two witnesses. 5. On appreciation of oral as well documentary evidence placed before it, the learned trial Court de added as sundry charges in the bill of June, 2016 is illegal and defendants from recovering said amount from the plaintiffs and from disconnecting electricity supply of plainti preferred by the defendants against the aforesaid judgment and decree before the learned 1st Appellate Court also stands dismissed. Hence appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the Civil Court is barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2003) for specific matters delineated under Sections 126 and 127 and actions taken or proposed to be taken unde buttress his arguments, he relies upon the judgment passed by this Court in Mahesh Kumar Vs. Sub Divisional Officer RCR (Civil) 303. procedure was followed treated the assessment made by the authority as an arbitrary action. issues No.3 to 6 pressed. The issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage. setting aside of the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below. 2025 (O&M) -3- On the basis of pleadings, seven issues were framed trial Court including the issue of relief. Plaintiffs examined three witnesses in support of his case and tendered documents Ex.PA to Ex.PC. On the other hand, defendants examined two witnesses. On appreciation of oral as well documentary evidence placed before it, the learned trial Court decreed the suit to the effect that added as sundry charges in the bill of June, 2016 is illegal and defendants from recovering said amount from the plaintiffs and from disconnecting electricity supply of plaintiffs on account of non preferred by the defendants against the aforesaid judgment and decree before the Appellate Court also stands dismissed. Hence Learned counsel for the appellants submits that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2003) for specific matters delineated under Sections 126 and 127 and actions taken or proposed to be taken unde buttress his arguments, he relies upon the judgment passed by Mahesh Kumar Vs. Sub Divisional Officer RCR (Civil) 303. Both the courts below without examining the issue whether procedure was followed by the assessing authority or not under the Act of 2003, treated the assessment made by the authority as an arbitrary action. issues No.3 to 6 have wrongly been decided by the learned trial Court as not e issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage. setting aside of the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts On the basis of pleadings, seven issues were framed by the learned Plaintiffs examined three witnesses in tendered documents Ex.PA to Ex.PC. On the other hand, On appreciation of oral as well documentary evidence placed before it, creed the suit to the effect that a sum of Rs.2,29,569/ added as sundry charges in the bill of June, 2016 is illegal and further restrained the defendants from recovering said amount from the plaintiffs and from disconnecting ffs on account of non-payment of said amount. Appeal preferred by the defendants against the aforesaid judgment and decree before the Appellate Court also stands dismissed. Hence, the regular second nts submits that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2003) for specific matters delineated under Sections 126 and 127 and actions taken or proposed to be taken under the Act of 2003. To buttress his arguments, he relies upon the judgment passed by a Division Bench of Mahesh Kumar Vs. Sub Divisional Officer and another 2025 (3) without examining the issue whether by the assessing authority or not under the Act of 2003, treated the assessment made by the authority as an arbitrary action. Furthermore, have wrongly been decided by the learned trial Court as not e issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage. Therefore, prays for setting aside of the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts by the learned Plaintiffs examined three witnesses in tendered documents Ex.PA to Ex.PC. On the other hand, On appreciation of oral as well documentary evidence placed before it, sum of Rs.2,29,569/- restrained the defendants from recovering said amount from the plaintiffs and from disconnecting Appeal preferred by the defendants against the aforesaid judgment and decree before the the regular second nts submits that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2003) for specific matters delineated under Sections 126 r the Act of 2003. To a Division Bench of 2025 (3) due by the assessing authority or not under the Act of 2003, Furthermore, have wrongly been decided by the learned trial Court as not Therefore, prays for setting aside of the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2716-2025 (O&M) 7. Heard. 8. This Court has no hesitation in accepting the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 145 of the Act of 2003 and the issue qua jurisdiction can be raised even at the appellate stage. no jurisdiction Sections 126 and 127 of the Act inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or after inspection of records maintained by any person, person is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgment the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person ben by the assessing officer concluding that a person was indulged in an unauthorized use of electricity and then, there should be provisional assessment with respect to electricity charges payable by such person. In the present case, there is no such report of the assessing officer of electricity and accordingly, a levied are merely sundry charges. assessment ought to be serve charges of the place or premises in such manner as may be prescribed. Admittedly, no such order of provisional plaintiffs. Against the provisional assessment, after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person, a final order of assessment is passed. At no stage, case of the appellants 2025 (O&M) -4- Heard. This Court has no hesitation in accepting the argument raised by the nsel for the appellants that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 145 of the Act of 2003 and the issue qua jurisdiction can be raised even at the appellate stage. As per Section 145 of the Act of 2003, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain suits or proceedings arising from actions taken under Sections 126 and 127 of the Act ibid. Section 126 inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or after inspection of records maintained by any person, the assessing officer on is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgment the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefited by such use. Therefore, first of all, there should be a report the assessing officer concluding that a person was indulged in an unauthorized use of electricity and then, there should be provisional assessment with respect to electricity charges payable by such person. In the present case, there is no such the assessing officer available on record that there was unauthorized use of electricity and accordingly, a provisional assessment was made. The charges are merely sundry charges. Furthemore, such order of provisional assessment ought to be served upon the person in occupation or possession or in charges of the place or premises in such manner as may be prescribed. Admittedly, no such order of provisional assessment was served upon the respondents Against the provisional assessment, after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person, a final order of assessment is passed. At no stage, case of the appellants This Court has no hesitation in accepting the argument raised by the nsel for the appellants that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 145 of the Act of 2003 and the issue qua jurisdiction can be raised As per Section 145 of the Act of 2003, Civil Court has o entertain suits or proceedings arising from actions taken under Section 126 talks about assessment that if on inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or after inspection of records officer comes to the conclusion that such on is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgment the electricity charges payable by such person or by any Therefore, first of all, there should be a report the assessing officer concluding that a person was indulged in an unauthorized use of electricity and then, there should be provisional assessment with respect to electricity charges payable by such person. In the present case, there is no such available on record that there was unauthorized use assessment was made. The charges Furthemore, such order of provisional d upon the person in occupation or possession or in charges of the place or premises in such manner as may be prescribed. Admittedly, was served upon the respondents Against the provisional assessment, objections are to be called for and after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person, a final order of assessment is passed. At no stage, case of the appellants-defendants before the This Court has no hesitation in accepting the argument raised by the nsel for the appellants that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 145 of the Act of 2003 and the issue qua jurisdiction can be raised As per Section 145 of the Act of 2003, Civil Court has o entertain suits or proceedings arising from actions taken under that if on inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or after inspection of records comes to the conclusion that such on is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgment the electricity charges payable by such person or by any Therefore, first of all, there should be a report the assessing officer concluding that a person was indulged in an unauthorized use of electricity and then, there should be provisional assessment with respect to electricity charges payable by such person. In the present case, there is no such available on record that there was unauthorized use assessment was made. The charges Furthemore, such order of provisional d upon the person in occupation or possession or in charges of the place or premises in such manner as may be prescribed. Admittedly, was served upon the respondents- objections are to be called for and after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person, a final order of defendants before the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2716-2025 (O&M) learned Courts below was that the amount levied upon was levied under Section 126 of the Act of 2003 after following the due procedure. The onus to prove that the charges levied upon the respondents under Section 126 of the Act of 2003 after following due procedure appellants-defendants, which they failed to discharge. upon by learned counsel for the appellants in applicable to the facts of the present case. 9. In view of the above, this Court the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below and the same are upheld, much less, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. Consequently, the instant regular second 10. Misc. application(s) pending, if any, shall August 11, 2025 Pankaj* 2025 (O&M) -5- learned Courts below was that the amount levied upon was levied under Section 126 of the Act of 2003 after following the due procedure. The onus to prove that the charges levied upon the respondents under Section 126 of the Act of 2003 after following due procedure defendants, which they failed to discharge. upon by learned counsel for the appellants in Mahesh Kumar’s case applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, this Court finds no illegality and irregularity in the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below and the same are upheld, much less, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. Consequently, the instant regular second Misc. application(s) pending, if any, shall (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable learned Courts below was that the amount levied upon the respondents-plaintiffs was levied under Section 126 of the Act of 2003 after following the due procedure. The onus to prove that the charges levied upon the respondents-plaintiffs were under Section 126 of the Act of 2003 after following due procedure was on the defendants, which they failed to discharge. Thus, the judgment relied Mahesh Kumar’s case (supra) is not finds no illegality and irregularity in the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below and the same are upheld, much less, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. Consequently, the instant regular second appeal stands dismissed. Misc. application(s) pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No plaintiffs was levied under Section 126 of the Act of 2003 after following the due procedure. plaintiffs were was on the Thus, the judgment relied (supra) is not finds no illegality and irregularity in the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below and the same are upheld, much less, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal stands dismissed. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.18 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh