127 UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM MS JAGAT GURU BRAHMANAND CORAM: Present: HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. (Oral) 1. the judgment and decree dated confirming the judgment and decree dated Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal. 2. wife. However, none has appeared on his behalf, as such, the respondent is proceeded against 3. demand of charges on account of theft of electricity. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2810 Date of Decision : 03 UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM VERSUS MS JAGAT GURU BRAHMANAND CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Mr. Shubham Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. *** HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. (Oral) The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2025 confirming the judgment and decree dated Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal. As per office report, respondent has been served through his wife. However, none has appeared on his behalf, as such, the respondent is proceeded against ex parte. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration assailing the demand of charges on account of theft of electricity. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2810-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 03-09-2025 UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM, PUNDRI, KAITHAL ........Appellant VERSUS ........Respondent(s) HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Advocate HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. (Oral) Regular Second Appeal has been filed impugning 03.03.2025 passed by Ld. District Judge, confirming the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2024, passed by the Civil pondent has been served through his wife. However, none has appeared on his behalf, as such, the respondent is plaintiff filed a suit for declaration assailing the demand of charges on account of theft of electricity. , PUNDRI, KAITHAL ........Respondent(s) HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Regular Second Appeal has been filed impugning passed by Ld. District Judge, passed by the Civil pondent has been served through his wife. However, none has appeared on his behalf, as such, the respondent is plaintiff filed a suit for declaration assailing the SAPNA GOYAL 2025.09.08 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2810-2025 (O&M) -2- 4. The issue regarding bar to the jurisdiction, in view of the provisions of Section 145 of the Act of 2003 has been settled by the Hon’ble Division Bench in RSA No.4181 of 2016 and other connected cases, titled as “Mahesh Kumar Vs. Sub-Divisional Officer and anr.”. 5. The present Regular Second Appeal is allowed in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in Mahesh Kumar’s case (supra). 6. However, liberty is granted to the respondent-plaintiff to avail alternate remedy as per law. 7. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. 03-09-2025 Sapna Goyal (HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking: YES Whether reportable: NO SAPNA GOYAL 2025.09.08 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document