Since common questions of fact and law arise for consideration, these three Civil Revision Petitions are heard together and decided by this common order.

2. The petitioners herein-APCPDCL, are the defendants in (E) O.S.No.3 of 2003; (E) O.S.No.1 of 2003 and (E) O.S.No.2 of 2003 on the file of the Court of 151 Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. The respondents in these revision petitions are the plaintiffs in the respective suits.

3. Having received summons in the suits, the defendants/revision petitioners filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code to reject the plaints on the ground that the Court of the 151 Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, which is functioning as the Special Court under the Electricity Act, 2003 (Act 36 of 2003) (for short "the Act"), had no jurisdiction to entertain the said suits. The said applications numbered as I.A.Nos.1673; 876 and 1722 of 2004 in (E) O.S.No.3 of 2003; (E) O.S.No.1 of 2003 and (E) O.S.No.2 of 2003 were dismissed by the Court below by separate orders dated 5-1 0-2004; 13-12-2004 and 13-12-2004 respectively. The said orders are under challenge in these three revision petitions filed by the defendants-APCPDCL.

4. As can be seen from the orders impugned, the three suits were filed with a prayer to declare the disconnection of the power supply to the consumer (plaintiff) as arbitrary and illegal, and also questioning the imposition of penalty and alleged filing of false case against the plaintiff and also questioning the collection of amounts towards the alleged theft of energy.

5. It appears that the grievance of the plaintiffs in the said suits was that the defendants - APCPDCL had illegally collected electricity consumption charges by converting their LT power supply connections into HT power supply, that they had also collected consumption charges during the period of disconnection of power supply and that the demand for surcharge was also illegal and without any basis. Thus, the plaintiffs sought for recovery of different amounts together with interest thereon.

6. It is not in dispute that the 1st Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, has been constituted as a Special Court under Section 153 of the Act, to try the offences punishable under Sections 135 to 139 of the Act.

7. The defendants having filed their written statements contesting the suit claim on merits, raised a further objection as to the maintainability of the suits on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suits, since the Special Courts under the Act have been established only for providing speedy trial of offences under Sections 135 to 139 of the Act following the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973and, therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suits in question which relate to the determination of civil liability of the defendants against a consumer in terms of money. Accordingly, the defendants filed separate applications (I.A.Nos.1673; 876 and 1722 of 2004 in (E) O.S.No.3 of 2003; (E) O.S.No.1 of 2003 and (E) O.S.No.2 of 2003), under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code to reject the plaints.

8. The said applications were opposed by the plaintiffs/respondents herein stating that the Special Court functions both as criminal and civil Court and, therefore, it has jurisdiction to determine the civil liability as well.

9. The Court below while placing reliance upon a decision of this Court in Brilliant Industries Limited (Vaccines Division), Patancheruvu v. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., (A.P. Transco), Hyderabad and others1 held that the Special Court constituted under the Act was competent to determine the civil liability for the loss or damage incurred by the Board or the licensee due to the commission of offences under Sections 135 to 139 of the Act. Accordingly, it was held that the suits were maintainable, and the applications were dismissed.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the