24.08.2026 Item No.11 Ct. No.652 PG C.O. 2436 of 2025 Brindaban Dey Vs West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Ors. Ms. Kaberi Ghosh(Dey) Mr. Sujit Chowdhury ….for the petitioner Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee….for the opposite parties 1. Parties are represented. 2. In the instant revision, an order dated 13.01.2025 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kalna passed in Title Execution Case No. 02 of 2023, has been challenged. 3. In the said order, the learned trial Court has inter alia, held that the decree put into execution by the present petitioner/plaintiff/decree holder could not have been executed as per law, insofar as, for a matter relating to the Electricity Act, 2003, the said civil Court had no jurisdiction, in terms of section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 4. Ms. Kaberi Ghosh (Dey), learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the order as above, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kalna suffers from jurisdictional error insofar as the petitioner/ plaintiff/decree holder intended to execute a decree of declaration passed by the Court as regards illegality of the Electricity bills raised 2 against him by the opposite parties/defendants, which were not commensurate with the actual consumption of the electricity by the petitioner. 5. With reference to section 145 of the Electricity Act of 2003, she has contended that civil court’s jurisdiction is ousted only with respect to matters disputing assessment of electricity bill and hence the learned trial Court could not have refused to execute the decree of the present petitioner/decree holder. 6. Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee, learned advocate, appears for the opposite party. According to Mr. Mukherjee the suit filed by the present petitioner/plaintiff ought not to have been maintainable before the learned trial Court due to operation of section 145 of the Act of 2003 and also Regulation 55, clause 3.5 1(a) of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission. 7. On careful perusal of the provisions under sections 145, 125, 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as well as the issues involved in the suit before the learned trial Court, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner espouses his grievance as regards bills not commensurate with his actual consumption and sought for declaration of the electricity bills as illegal before the learned trial Court. However, due to operation of the provisions of law, as mentioned 3 above, the dispute relating to bill is not to be a subject matter of the civil Court. Civil Court’s embarking into consideration of the petitioner’s plea as above in the said suit, would amount to erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the same, which is not maintainable in the eye of law. 8. Where a special statute creates a complete and self-contained mechanism for determination of a particular class of disputes, and provides for adjudication and appellate remedies in respect thereof, the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil Court stands excluded, either expressly or by necessary implication, in relation to matters which the statutory authorities are competent to determine. The substance of the relief claimed, and not merely the form in which the plaint is drafted, is determinative of jurisdiction. 9. The execution of a decree cannot confer upon a Court a jurisdiction which it lacked to entertain and adjudicate upon the subject matter in the first place. The doctrine of jurisdiction is founded upon statutory competence and cannot be enlarged by consent, acquiescence, waiver or by the mere circumstance that a decree has been passed. Tested on these principles, the petitioner’s grievance, though expressed as a challenge to the legality of the electricity bills, substantially concerns a matter which falls 4 within the statutory scheme of the Electricity Act, 2003 and is, therefore, outside the jurisdiction of the civil Court. 10.For the reasons above, I do not find any infirmity, illegality or impropriety in the order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kalna dated 13.01.2025 in Title Execution Case No. 02 of 2023. Hence, the same needs no interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 11.For the reasons as above, C.O. 2436 of 2025 stands dismissed. 12.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to its parties on usual undertaking. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)