Judgment:
Manot Kumar Rs.No.2721 of 2013 (O&M) #1#2013.08.13 08:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.2721 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision:
11. 7.2013 Municipal Council Jagraon ....Appellant Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Ms.Jasvir Kaur, Advocate for the appellant.
JASWANT SINGH, J Plaintiff-Municipal Council, Jagraon is in second appeal against the concurrent findings of both the courts below whereby its suit for declaration and perpetual injunction has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 8.11.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.
Division).Jagraon and the findings affirmed in appeal vide judgment and decree dated 19.3.2013 passed by the learned Addl.
District Judge, Ludhiana.
Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit and challenged the fine of Rs.9,48,632/- imposed by the defendants-respondents/PSEB with a further prayer for mandatory injunction directing the defendants-respondents to refund 10% amount of fine recovered by them.
Suit was opposed by the defendants-respondents by Rs.No.2721 of 2013 (O&M) #2# alleging that the plaintiff-appellant was running its six tube-wells in the Municipal area of Jagraon without obtaining any connection legally and thus the same amounts to theft.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper book.
It is not in dispute that six electric motors were installed in different parts of Jagraon Municipal area for water supply to the public and there is no evidence produced by plaintiff that any electric connection was obtained for running the same rather it is admitted by the witness of the plaintiff himself that electric motors were being run without having obtained a regular electric connection and reference in this regard can be made to para 10 of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court while deciding issues Nos.1 to 3.
This finding has further been affirmed by the learned fiRs.Appellate Court and rather finding on issue No.5 has also been reversed and it is held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant in view of the provisions of Electricity Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, when it is admitted from the side of the plaintiff-appellant itself that six electric motors were being run without having an electric connection, there was no occasion to grant any relief of declaration or permanent injunction as has been sought by the plaintiff-appellant.
Even otherwise, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 8.12.2010 passed in Civil Appeal No.5362 titled Rs.No.2721 of 2013 (O&M) #3# as PSEB versus M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories LTD.wherein it has been held that the Civil Court shall not be justified in entertaining the suit for declaration without directing the parties to avail the remedies provided under the Electricity Act, the learned fiRs.Appellate has rightly returned the plaint for being presented before the appropriate Appellate Authority.
No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal for adjudication under Section 100 CPC.
Dismissed.
July 11,2013 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manot JUDGE