Civil Court jurisdiction is barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act for proceedings related to unauthorized electricity use unless the proper assessment procedure is followed.

JUDGMENT :

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

C.M No.9423-C of 2025

The instant application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 31 days in filing the appeal.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 31 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

RSA No.2716 of 2025 (O&M)

1. The defendants are the appellants before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2019 passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondents-plaintiffs and the judgment dated 02.04.2025 passed by the learned 1^st Appellate Court vide which the appeal preferred by them against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, has been dismissed.

2. In brief, the facts are that the respondents-plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration to the effect that a sum of Rs.2,29,569/- added in the electricity bill for the month of July 2016 is illegal, null and void and that they are entitled to deposit the current bill. A decree of permanent injunction had also been sought against the appellants-defendants to restrain them from recovering the impugned amount of Rs.2,29,569/- and from disconnecting the electricity supply of the respondents-plaintiff. Respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 had constructed a godown for storing vegetables and fruits and took an electricity connection bearing account No.CC-21/0283 in NDS category with sanctioned load of 10 KWs from the defendants. Respondent No.2/Plaintiff No.2 had taken the said godown on rent from plaintiff No.1 and used the same for storing bananas. It was stated that plaintiff No.2 was regularly depositing the energy bills and nothing remained outstanding against him. Plaintiff No.2 had received the electricity bill of Rs.3,14,505/- for the month of July 2016 wherein Rs.2,29,569/- were charged as sundry charges. It has been stated that the said amount has been charged in an illegal manner as there was nothing outstanding against plaintiff No.2. No notice prior to addition of the sum of Rs.2,29,569/- in the bill of July 2016 as sundry charges was issued. On receipt of the said bill, plaintiff No.2 visited the office of appellants-defendants and asked for the details of amount added in the bill for the month of July 2016 but he was not supplied with the requisite details. Being aggrieved by afore-mentioned factual scenario, the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement and raising preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action and suppression of material. However, it was admitted that plaintiff No.2 used the premises of plaintiff No.1. It was conceded that bill to the tune of Rs.3,14,505/- was sent to plaintiff No.2 wherein the sum of Rs.2,29,569/- were charged as sundry charges. The rest of the submissions as made in the plaint were denied.

4. On the basis of pleadings, seven issues were framed by the learned trial Court including the issue of relief. Plaintiffs examined three witnesses in support of his case and tendered documents Ex.PA to Ex.PC. On the other hand, defendants examined two witnesses.

5. On appreciation of oral as well documentary evidence placed before it, the learned trial Court decreed the suit to the effect that a sum of Rs.2,29,569/- added as sundry charges in the bill of June, 2016 is illegal and further restrained the defendants from recovering said amount from the plaintiffs and from disconnecting electricity supply of plaintiffs on account of non-payment of said amount. Appeal preferred by the defendants against the aforesaid judgment and decree before the learned 1^st A