The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred under Sec. 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, from granting any injunction in respect of an action to be taken by the Authority under the said Act.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard.

2. The present Revision Application is filed by the Maharashtra State Electricity Parashan Company Limited, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Nagpur below Exhibit No. 9 in Regular Civil Suit No. 574/2022. The Applicants/Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed Application under Sec. 9 read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the Plaint.

3. It is the contention of the Defendants specifically that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred under the provisions of Sec. 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The Suit is filed against the Defendant - Company for Declaration and Permanent Injunction. The Plaintiffs have also preferred an Application for grant of temporary injunction. The contention of the present Defendants was that in view of the bar under Sec. 145 of the said Act, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any Suit or Proceedings in respect of any matter of which Assessing Officer referred to in Sec. 126 or the Appellate Authority referred to in Sec. 127 or the Adjudicating Officer appointed under the said Act is empowered to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court in respect of any action taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the said Act.

4. Thus, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred to that extent. The Plaintiffs are challenging the action of erecting and installing of electric tower for supplying the electricity from the generation plant to specified destination. The Plaintiffs have also sought relief of temporary injunction against the Defendants with the prayer that the Defendants may be restrained from creating any third party interest in the Suit Property. The work undertaken by the Authority of the Company falls within the purview of Sec. 40 of the said Act.

5. Learned Counsel for the Applicants relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of A. Kaleur Rahman vs. P. Kanna reported in AIR OnLine 2019 Mad. 1751 and also the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Parminder Kaur @ Satinder Kaur vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and another in R.S.A. No. 1664/2015 decided on 22/04/2016.

6. On consideration of these judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the Applicants, it is clear that Sec. 145 of the said Act clearly bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court from granting any injunction in respect of an action to be taken by the Authority under the said Act. The bar contemplated under Sec. 145 of the said Act is two fold: (a) The first part of the Sec. deals with Suits or Proceedings being filed in respect of any matter which an Assessing Officer is required under Sec. 126 or an Appellate Authority under Sec. 127 or the Adjudicating Officer under the said Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine. (b) The second limb of the Sec. deals with any action being instituted in any Court or before any Authority with reference to any action taken or proposed to be taken in pursuance to any powers conferred under the said Act. Therefore, on reading of the above Sec. makes it clear that not only is the Suit or Proceedings before the Civil Court barred in respect of the matters under Sec. 126 or Sec. 127 or before the Adjudicating Officer under the Act, but the Suit or Proceedings before the Civil Court is also barred if an injunction is sought for to prevent or to direct any action to be taken by any Authority under the Act. The installation of towers for supply of electricity is the act which is done by the Authorities or Authorized Licensee under the said Act. Therefore, the Suit for injunction restraining them from erecting any fresh tower for supply of electricity falls within the bar of Sec. 145 of the said Act.

7. In my considered opinion, the learned Trial Court totally misinterpreted the provisions of Sec. 145 of the said Act. As such, the impugned order passed by th