Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mangat Singh vs Unknown on 6 September, 2012
C.R No. 5193 of 2012 (O&M) ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R No. 5193 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision : September 06, 2012
Mangat Singh,
...... Petitioner
v.
Additional Assistant Engineer,
...... Respondent
***
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Ms. Sonia G.Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
***
AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral)
This petition has been filed against the order rejecting the plaint of the petitioner.
The petitioner had filed a suit challenging a notice under the Electricity Act. The respondent filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC pleading that the suit was barred in view of the provisions of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (herein after referred to as "the Act"). The Court below considering the fact that Section 126 of the Act provides for quasi judicial decision of the dispute and that specific bar regarding jurisdiction of the civil Court is contained in Section 145 of the Act, allowed the application and rejected the plaint.
Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this C.R No. 5193 of 2012 (O&M) ::2::
Court in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Panchkula and others v. Poonam Vashisth, 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 677. In the said case, admittedly the dispute was not under Section 126 of the Act and no plea regarding bar of jurisdiction had been taken by the Electricity Corporation in the Courts below. In those circumstances, this Court held that the suit was maintainable. The said judgment is, however, completely distinguishable. Consequently, finding no fault with the impugned order of the trial Court, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
( AJAY TEWARI ) September 06, 2012. JUDGE `kk'