$~45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA 92/2024 SEWA SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.

versus BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Kirti Garg and Mr. Sharique Hussain, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R

% 13.01.2026

1. Second Appeal under Section 100 read with Order XLII of C.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the Appellant Sewa Singh against judgment dated 06.02.2024 whereby the learned ADJ-01, New Delhi upheld the judgment of learned Civil Judge rejecting the Plaint of the Plaintiff / Appellant under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.

2. Brief facts are that Plaintiff / Appellant was in possession property bearing No.38, Summan Bazar, Jungpura, Bhogal, New Delhi. Due to fluctuations in electric current and also high-low voltage in different phases, some personnel of the Defendant / Respondent BSES Rajdhani Power Limited came to his residence for checking his Electricity Meter bearing No.23765120 having the connection No.2540C7111019. It was noted that the Meter reading was 3248. The Meter was replaced with a new meter and previous Meter was sent to laboratory.

3. Appellant was given one page Meter Change Report, four pages of Inspection Report, three pages of Form of Assessment of connected load and one page of Corporate Legal and Enforcement Cell. Appellant being an uneducated person came to know about the nature of these papers when he contacted some other person.

4. It was asserted by the Appellant that as per allegations of the officials of Respondent, the Meter was showing current date 16.12.2001 and time 18:16:19 whereas the actual date was 25.04.2011 and actual time was 12:16. It was thus concluded by BSES, that Real Time Cloak (RTC) of the Meter had failed. It was also alleged that the Meter was found being used for commercial purpose, though it was allotted for the domestic purpose; it was concluded as the case of S/DAE +UuE.

5. Thereafter, an Inspection Report dated 25.05.2011, officials of Respondent BSES passed a speaking Order dated 21.07.2011, stating that the meter was showing reading of 3248 and defect was found on terminal block of the Meter and it was declared to be a tampered meter. The Meter was sent for testing. It was found to be a case of tampering of meter.

6. The Plaintiff / Appellant gave his Reply vide Application dated 27.07.2011, but Defendant / Respondent concluded that the Meter was used for the commercial purpose and raised a bill in the sum of Rs.46,945/-. A legal Notice dated 06.03.2011 was sent to the Appellant on account of direct theft and for use of meter for commercial purpose.

7. Plaintiff approached the Office of Defendant several times, but he was directed to deposit the demanded amount, despite him showing various Bills to show the consumption pattern and also the billing of new Meter. Despite several requests, the Meter No.24327540 was disconnected and Bill of Rs.2330/- was issued, with the due date of 23.03.2014. Plaintiff claimed that he made the payment despite which he was being harassed for the act which were never committed by him.

8. Thereafter, he filed Civil Suit No. 75/12, but was dismissed on 14.10.2013 for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff, thereafter, approached District Consumer Forum where he was given liberty to file the Civil Suit. Thus, he filed Civil Suit, but the same also got rejected by the learned Trial Court under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. vide Order dated 21.12.2022. RCA DJ7/23 was thus, filed before learned ADJ, but the same also got dismissed on 06.02.2024, for the reason that the civil court has no jurisdiction over matters concerning electricity.

9. Aggrieved by the rejection, Appellant has challenged the impugned Order dated 06.02.2024 in present Second Appeal on the grounds that learned ADJ has dismissed the Appeal with cryptic Order. In the case of Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottm Tiwari (Deceased) by Lrs., (2001) 3 SCC 179; Madhukar and others Vs Sangram and Others, (2001) 4 SCC 756; B. M. Nar