Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral).:- Plaintiff M/s Ujjal Rice Sheller has filed the instant second appeal.

2. The plaintiff runs seasonal rice sheller. It was granted connection by the defendants/respondents in the year 2006-07. The plaintiff, however, noticed that the meter was recording excess consumption. The plaintiff gave application dated 26.2.2007 to rectify the same. The sheller was running at that time. However, defendants did not do the needful. After the season was over, supply of electricity to the premises of the plaintiff was disconnected on 28.3.2007. Some officials of the defendants visited the premises of the plaintiff on 9.5.2007. They reported that red phase of the meter was not working. On its basis defendant no. 2 Assistant Executive Engineer issued impugned letter dated 28.5.2007 requiring plaintiff to deposit Rs.2,86,082/- being 33% in excess of the consumption actually recorded by the meter during the last six months. The said demand was challenged in the suit being illegal etc. Direction to redress grievance of the plaintiff made in letter dated 26.2.2007 was also sought.

3. Defendants resisted the suit and inter alia, pleaded that suit is not maintainable in view of section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short, the Act). The plaintiff did not file appeal before the competent authority under the provisions of the Act. Red terminal of the meter of the plaintiff was found missing at the time of checking on 9.5.2007. The meter was again got checked on 14.5.2007 by summoning Mobile Testing Service. As per finding of the said testing, assessment of load was calculated correctly and impugned demand was made by making calculation and assessment as per circulars of the Electricity Board. The impugned demand was justified by the defendants and was pleaded to be legal and valid. Various other pleas were also raised.

4. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rupnagar vide judgment and decree dated 21.11.2009 decreed the plaintiff’s suit declaring that impugned demand made by the defendants vide letter 28.5.2007 is illegal, unlawful, arbitrary and against rules and regulations. Accordingly, defendants were restrained from implementing the said letter. However, first appeal preferred by the defendants has been allowed by learned District Judge, Rupnagar vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.2010 holding that jurisdiction of civil suit is barred by section 145 of the Act. Consequently, suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed but liberty has been given to the plaintiff to file appeal before appropriate authority or appellate authority of the Electricity Board for challenging the impugned letter and the period spent in prosecuting the instant civil suit may be excluded. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that meter of the plaintiff was checked on 9.5.2007 whereas electricity supply to the plaintiff’s premises had been disconnected on 28.3.2007. It was also pointed out that according to data download (DDL) of the plaintiff’s electronic meter, red phase of the meter stopped working since 4.5.2007 i.e. long after the electricity supply had been disconnected on 28.3.2007 and therefore, the question of theft of electricity by the plaintiff did not arise. It was accordingly argued that plaintiff’s case, therefore, does not fall within the purview of section 126 of the Act and consequently jurisdiction of civil court is not barred by section 145 of the Act. Reliance in support of this contention has also been placed on judgment of this Court in Dakshin Haryana Bill Vitran Nigam Limited, Punchkula and others versus Poonam Vashisth, 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 677.

7. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. Sections 126 and 145 of the Act are reproduced hereinunder:-

“126. Assessment.- (1) If on an inspection of any place or premises or