Gujarat High Court Allows Appeal in Power Theft Recovery Suit — Failure to Prove Ownership and Possession of Premises Renders Decree Unsustainable. The court held that the plaintiff must establish the defendant's ownership or possession of the premises where theft occurred to fix liability under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

High Court: Gujarat High Court In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-19 01:01:27

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Gajendrasinh P Zala, filed a First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2009 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhavnagar in Special Civil Suit No.221 of 2003. By the impugned decree, the appellant was ordered to pay Rs.37,67,134/- to the respondent, Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd, towards alleged power theft committed on a premises occupied by the appellant running a plastic manufacturing industry without a legal electric connection or meter. The appellant argued that the Trial Court failed to consider that the respondent had not established the ownership and possession of the premises where the power theft allegedly took place. The appellant's counsel emphasized that the Inspection Report (Exhibit-82) prepared during the raid did not contain any evidence linking the appellant to the premises. The court, after hearing both sides, found merit in the appellant's contention. The court noted that the respondent had not produced any evidence to prove that the appellant was the owner or in possession of the premises. Therefore, the decree could not be sustained. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court were set aside. The court did not award costs.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Appeal under Section 96 CPC - Power Theft Recovery - The appeal challenged a decree for Rs.37,67,134/- passed in a suit for recovery of electricity dues based on alleged power theft. The court examined whether the plaintiff had proved the defendant's ownership or possession of the premises where theft occurred. Held that in absence of such proof, the decree is unsustainable (Paras 1-4).

Issue of Consideration

Whether the respondent-plaintiff had established the ownership and possession of the premises by the appellant-defendant to fix liability for alleged power theft.

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. The judgment and decree dated 31.07.2009 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhavnagar in Special Civil Suit No.221 of 2003 is set aside. No order as to costs.

Law Points

Burden of proof
Ownership and possession
Power theft liability
Civil suit for recovery
Section 96 CPC

Case Details

2026:GUJHC:4666-DB

R/First Appeal No. 4185 of 2009

2026-01-16

Honourable Mr. Justice A.Y. Kogje, Honourable Mr. Justice J. L. Odedra

2026:GUJHC:4666-DB

HL Patel Advocates for Appellant, Ms Lilu K Bhaya for Defendant

Gajendrasinh P Zala

Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd

Nature of Litigation

First Appeal under Section 96 of CPC against a decree in a civil suit for recovery of electricity dues based on alleged power theft.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought setting aside of the decree for Rs.37,67,134/- passed by the Trial Court.

Filing Reason

Appellant challenged the decree on the ground that the respondent failed to prove ownership and possession of the premises where theft occurred.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent on 31.07.2009.

Issues

Whether the respondent established the appellant's ownership or possession of the premises for power theft liability.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the respondent failed to prove ownership and possession of the premises; relied on Inspection Report Exhibit-82 to show no link to appellant.

Ratio Decidendi

In a suit for recovery of electricity dues based on power theft, the plaintiff must prove the defendant's ownership or possession of the premises where the theft occurred. Failure to do so renders the decree unsustainable.

Judgment Excerpts

The Trial Court has not taken into consideration the vital aspect that the respondents had failed to establish the ownership and possession of the premises allegedly where the power theft had taken place.

Procedural History

The respondent filed Special Civil Suit No.221 of 2003 for recovery of Rs.37,67,134.79/- based on alleged power theft. The Trial Court decreed the suit on 31.07.2009. The appellant filed the present First Appeal under Section 96 CPC.