Case Note & Summary
The present Civil Revision Application was filed by the Maharashtra State Electricity Parashan Company Limited (MSEDCL) against an order of the learned Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Nagpur, rejecting their application under Section 9 read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for rejection of the plaint in Regular Civil Suit No. 574/2022. The suit was filed by the non-applicants, who are partners of a firm called SANGRAM LAND DEVELOPERS, seeking a declaration that the electricity bills raised by the defendants were illegal and arbitrary, and for an injunction restraining the defendants from disconnecting the electricity supply. The defendants contended that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit because of the bar under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which provides that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the authorities under the Act are empowered to determine. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and that the bar under Section 145 was not attracted because the suit involved disputed questions of fact regarding theft or unauthorized use of electricity. The High Court, in its oral judgment, upheld the trial court's order. It held that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court must look only at the plaint averments and the documents filed by the plaintiff, and not the defence of the defendant. The court further held that the bar under Section 145 of the Electricity Act applies only to matters that the authorities under the Act are specifically empowered to determine. In the present case, the allegations of theft or unauthorized use of electricity were disputed and required evidence, and therefore the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The revision application was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Bar of Jurisdiction - The court must consider only the plaint averments and documents filed by the plaintiff; the defence of the defendant cannot be considered at the stage of rejection of plaint. (Para 5)
B) Electricity Law - Bar of Civil Court Jurisdiction - Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 - The bar under Section 145 applies only to matters which the authorities under the Act are empowered to determine; where disputed questions of fact arise regarding theft or unauthorized use of electricity, the civil court's jurisdiction is not ousted. (Paras 6-7)
C) Electricity Law - Theft of Electricity - Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 - Allegations of theft or unauthorized use of electricity require adjudication of disputed facts, which cannot be decided summarily; the civil court can entertain a suit for injunction and declaration in such cases. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for injunction and declaration regarding electricity bills and disconnection, given the bar under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The order passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Nagpur below Exhibit No. 9 in Regular Civil Suit No. 574/2022 is confirmed. The trial court is directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Civil court jurisdiction
- Bar of jurisdiction
- Electricity Act
- 2003
- Section 145
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Rejection of plaint
- Disputed questions of fact
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (01) 300
Civil Revision Application No. 122/2022
Shri M. Rajkondawar for Applicant(s), Shri P.S. Sahare for Non-Applicants
The Additional Executive Engineer, Auda Vahani Project Sub-Division, Maharashtra State Electricity Parashan Company Limited and The Executive Engineer, Auda Project Division No.1, Maharashtra State Electricity Parashan Company Limited
Shri Kishor S/o Mohanlal Paliwal, Shri Partik S/o Parmanand Jambulkar, Shri Kamlesh S/o Jogeshwar Sahu (partners of SANGRAM LAND DEVELOPERS)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Revision Application against order rejecting application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Remedy Sought
The applicants (defendants) sought rejection of the plaint in Regular Civil Suit No. 574/2022 on the ground of bar of jurisdiction under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Filing Reason
The non-applicants (plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration that electricity bills were illegal and for injunction against disconnection; the defendants contended that the civil court had no jurisdiction.
Previous Decisions
The learned Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Nagpur, rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and the bar under Section 145 was not attracted.
Issues
Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for injunction and declaration regarding electricity bills and disconnection, given the bar under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Whether the plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC when the defendant raises a plea of bar of jurisdiction based on disputed facts.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicants argued that the civil court's jurisdiction is expressly barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, as the matter falls within the purview of the authorities under the Act.
The non-applicants contended that the suit involves disputed questions of fact regarding theft or unauthorized use of electricity, and therefore the civil court has jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The bar under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 applies only to matters which the authorities under the Act are empowered to determine. Where disputed questions of fact arise, such as allegations of theft or unauthorized use of electricity, the civil court's jurisdiction is not ousted. At the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the plaint averments and documents filed by the plaintiff are to be considered, not the defence of the defendant.
Judgment Excerpts
The present Revision Application is filed by the Maharashtra State Electricity Parashan Company Limited, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Nagpur below Exhibit No. 9 in Regular Civil Suit No. 574/2022.
It is the contention of the Defendants specifically that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred under the provisions of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
The bar under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 applies only to matters which the authorities under the Act are empowered to determine. In the present case, the allegations of theft or unauthorized use of electricity are disputed and require evidence, and therefore the civil court has jurisdiction.
Procedural History
The non-applicants filed Regular Civil Suit No. 574/2022 before the Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Nagpur. The applicants (defendants) filed an application under Section 9 read with Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. The trial court rejected that application. Aggrieved, the applicants filed the present Civil Revision Application No. 122/2022 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Electricity Act, 2003: Section 145, Section 135
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 9, Order VII Rule 11
