121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:09.02.2026 DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM AND ANOTHER ...Petitioners Vs.

MALHA RAM KHEKHARIA ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Shubham Chauhan, Advocate for the appellants.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

CM-10645-C-2025 The present application has been for grant of leave under Rule 3/A(I)

of Chapter VI, Part B, Vol V of Punjab and Haryana High Court Rule and Order for exemption for filing.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, duly supported by an affidavit of the counsel, CM is allowed as prayed for.

CM-10646-C-2025 The present application has been filed under Section 151 CPC for exemption from filing the true copies/certified copies of the attached judgments/grounds of appeal/ documents.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, duly supported by an affidavit of the appellants, CM is allowed as prayed for.

RSA-3007-2025

1. The appellants have filed the present regular second appeal against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below whereby the suit filed by respondent/plaintiff has been decreed and the bill issued by the appellant has been declared illegal, null and void.

2. Briefly stated, the respondent/plaintiff, being a licensee of the appellants/defendants, had an electricity meter bearing Account No. 121561DUPL180001 (later changed to New Account No. 8279660000), which was installed in the name of his son, Haripal, who resides abroad. The respondent/plaintiff was regularly paying all bills issued by the appellants/defendants without any dispute. In the year 2010, the electricity meters were replaced, and new meters were installed outside the houses for more convenient reading and billing. Following the installation of the new meters, the appellants/defendants began issuing electricity bills on an average consumption basis, which the respondent/plaintiff continued to pay regularly and without objection. However, unexpectedly, the appellants/defendants issued the impugned bill for Rs. 1,65,024/-, claiming recovery of an alleged arrear. The respondent/plaintiff immediately approached the appellants/defendants for a correction of the bill, pointing out discrepancies and requesting adjustment, but the appellants/defendants failed to take any corrective action. Hence, the suit.

3. The suit was contested by the appellants/defendants on the ground that the impugned bill was issued after careful calculation based on the readings of the old meter, and, therefore, they were entitled to recover the alleged amount. Upon considering the pleadings of both parties, the Court framed the necessary issues for adjudication. Both parties were granted ample opportunities to lead evidence and present their respective cases. After a thorough examination of the evidence and hearing the arguments, the Court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent/plaintiff. The Court held that the impugned bill was illegal, null, and void. Further, the defendants were restrained from disconnecting the electricity supply on account of non-payment of the said bill. The appellants/defendants were also restrained from taking any steps to recover the disputed amount, thereby protecting the respondent/plaintiff from any coercive or punitive measures in relation to the allegedly erroneous demand.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellants/defendants preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. After considering the submissions and examining the record, the First Appellate Court, by its judgment and decree dated 30.04.2025, dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in its entirety. Being dissatisfied with the concurrent findings of fact and law recorded by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the appellants/defendants have filed the present appeal.

5. I have heard counsel for the appellant and have gone through the file carefully.

6. Learned couns