ORDER :

H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J.

1. The present respondent as a plaintiff has instituted a suit against the present petitioners arraying them as defendants in O.S. No. 56/2017 in the Court of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge at Jamkhandi (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') for the relief of specific performance of contract and as an alternate relief, for the costs. The present petitioners as defendants appeared in the suit and filed their written statement denying the plaint averments. Further, the defendants filed an application i.e. I.A. No. V in the said suit under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'), seeking for rejection of the plaint on the ground that, it was not maintainable in view of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The trial Court after inviting objection to the said application and hearing both side, by its impugned order dated 03.07.2018, rejected the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendants in the trial Court have preferred the present revision petition.

2. The respondent is being represented by his counsel.

3. Though this matter is listed today for Admission, however, with the consent from both sides, the matter is taken up for its final disposal.

4. Heard arguments from both sides. Perused the materials placed before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in his arguments submitted that, Section 145 of the Act when clearly mentions that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding which an Assessing Officer or an Appellate Authority or an Adjudicating Officer can decide. As such, in the instant case since the dispute is between the petitioners (defendants) which is a licensee and the plaintiff (respondent herein) which is a generating company, the said dispute has to be decided by the Adjudicating Officer appointed by the State Commission to whom the power of adjudication can be delegated by the State Commission.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent in his brief argument submitted that, even though the defendant No. 1 is the licensee and the plaintiff is a generating company and the State Commission can appoint an Adjudicating Officer, but the said Adjudicating Officer cannot adjudicate the present dispute which falls under Section 86 of the Act, as such, the impugned order sustains.

7. Admittedly, the suit is for specific performance of a contract said to have been in existence between the plaintiff and the defendants. Under the said alleged contract the plaintiff has prayed for a direction against the defendants for commissioning of 49 kWp Solar Roof Top Photovoltaic System of the plaintiff and also for granting the ancillary relief of the profits. In the alternate he has prayed for awarding the costs of a particular sum. The present petitioners in their I.A. No. V filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, have taken only the contention that in view of the bar under Section 145 of the Act, the suit before the Civil Court is not maintainable. Section 145 of the Act, reads as below:

"145. Civil Court not to have jurisdiction: No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an assessing officer referred to in section 126 or an appellate authority referred to in section 127 or the adjudicating officer appointed under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act."

8. As admitted by both sides, the present dispute between the parties won't fall either under Section 126 or Section 127 of the Act, as such, the bar for under those two Sections is not applicable. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the present dispute between the parties in th