The central legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters related to theft of electricity is barred under the Electricity Act.

Paramjeet Singh, J.

1. This is plaintiff's second appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 01.11.2013 passed by learned District Judge, Fatehabad whereby judgment and decree dated 17.12.2012 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ratia has been set aside and the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed. For convenience sake, hereinafter parties will be referred to as they were arrayed in the Court of first instance i.e. appellant as plaintiff and respondents as defendants.

2. The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of both the Courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the brief facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal are that plaintiff filed a suit challenging the vires of memo Nos. 195 and 196 dated 31.01.2011 whereby demand of Rs. 1.17 lacs and Rs. 2 lacs, respectively, was raised on the basis of checking carried out at the premises of the plaintiff on 20.01.2011. It is alleged that plaintiff was a consumer of the defendants having power connection No. RG31/0010, installed at his premises of flour mill at Village Bahamanwala, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad. The plaintiff was paying regularly for the same and there were no dues against him. His power meter was burnt. So, he moved an application for its replacement and alleged that he deposited required amount of Rs. 1750/- on 09.09.2009. He was assured of its replacement. But the meter was not replaced. A checking was carried out on 20.01.2011 in his absence and the demand has been raised vide the abovesaid two memos. Various grounds have been taken that the checking was not valid which are noticed in para No. 2 of the judgment of lower appellate Court.

3. Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed joint written statement asserting that the plaintiff is a consumer but he got power connection bearing No. BW-51/0164 for running a tubewell. He was never given any power connection for running a flour mill. On 20.01.2011, flour mill premises of the plaintiff was checked by a checking party headed by Assistant Engineer. It was found that his power meter was burnt and direct supply of power was being taken, thereby the plaintiff was committing theft of energy. It is alleged that meter was removed from the spot and packed. The plaintiff was found to be consuming 9.355 K.W. Load. Checking report was prepared at the spot which was witnessed by the plaintiff. The report and memos are legal and valid and binding upon him. Besides this, it was alleged that civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, the Court of first instance framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether notices bearing memos No. 195 and 196 dated 31.01.2011 whereby defendants have demanded a sum of Rs. 1,17,000/- as loss money and Rs. 2,00,000/- as compounding fee are illegal, null & void, opposed to principles of natural justice and thus are liable to be set aside? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPP

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

5. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD

6. Relief."

5. After perusal of the evidence led by the parties, the Court of first instance recorded issue-wise findings and decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 17.12.2012 and ordered to return 50% of the loss money to the plaintiff within two months from the date of order. Against that, defendants preferred an appeal, which has been allowed and judgment and decree of the Court of first instance has been set aside and the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed, by the learned lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 01.11.2013. Learned lower appellate court held that jurisdiction of civil court is barred and suit was not maintainable. Hence, this second appeal.

6. I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document