IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 03.12.2025 Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Dhilwan, District Kapurthala and another … Appellants Versus Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.

… Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Kuljeet Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Angad Chahal, Advocate, for the appellants.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

CM-8123-C-2022

1. Prayer in the present application preferred under Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 1144 days in refiling the appeal.

2. Heard.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The delay of 1144 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.

CM-8125-C-2022

4. Prayer in the present application preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 24 days in filing the appeal.

5. Heard.

6. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The delay of 24 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

7. This is plaintiffs’ appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2018, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2018 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kapurthala, vide which the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction instituted by the plaintiffs was dismissed.

8. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

9. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The case set up by the plaintiffs was that they received various bills, as detailed in the headnote of the plaint, from the defendant department, which allegedly included illegal sundry charges. It was further alleged that the plaintiffs addressed two letters for summary of sundry charges to the defendant dated 07.02.2013 and 08.02.2013, but the defendant furnished only vague replies. The plaintiffs further averred that they had sent ₹

a cheque for 79,075/- to the defendant department towards the current electricity consumption, but the same was refused by the department. The plaintiffs also averred that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to them prior to the imposition of the sundry charges, nor were any objections invited from them. It was also alleged that when the plaintiffs requested the defendant department to correct the impugned bills, the department insisted on recovering the entire amount and threatened disconnection of the electricity supply.

10. The suit was opposed by the defendant by way of a written statement, in which all the allegations levelled by the plaintiffs were denied and several preliminary objections as regards the maintainability of the present suit, that the suit had been filed by unauthorized persons, that it was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, and that the plaintiffs’ claim was barred by estoppel and devoid of any cause of action, were raised. It was further averred that the plaintiffs had, in the past as well, been paying the annual consumption charges at the end of each calendar year on the basis of the difference between their actual consumption and the stipulated units. The defendant also asserted that in 2010, the plaintiffs had challenged similar charges before the District Consumer Forum, but their objections were dismissed, thereby affirming their liability to pay the charges. On merits, the defendant denied all remaining allegations in the plaint as incorrect, while reiterating the position set out in the preliminary objections. They further stated that the cheque tendered by the plaintiffs was refused only because it constituted a mere part payment of the total dues. It was also asserted that the defendant had already responded to the plaintiffs’ grievance vide Memo dated 11.10.2013, supplying the details