Delhi District Court
Vimla Kumari Pathak vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited on 16 April, 2026
THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI SHARMA DISTRICT JUDGE-06:
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI Court: DELHI
RCA DJ No.77/26 Digitally
signed by
SHIVALI
In the matter of:- SHIVALI SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.16
Vimla Kumari Pathak 16:12:45
+0530
W/o Sh. Ram Murti Pathak
R/o House No. 353, Gali No. 4, Near Main Market,
Sant Nagar, Burari,
Delhi-110084 ..........Appellant
versus
Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (TPDDL)
through its Authorized Officer
Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp
Delhi-110009. ......Respondent
Date of institution : 09.04.2026
Date of Reserving Order : 15.04.2026
Date of decision : 16.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal filed by appellant Vimla Kumari Pathak against respondents challenging the i m p u g n e d o r d e r d a t e d 0 1 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 6 passed by Ld. Trial Court whereby the plaint of the appellant/plaintiff was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC.
RCA DJ No.77/26 Vimla Kumari Pathak vs TPDDL Page no.1/17
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to by their nomenclature before Ld. Trial Court.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
PLAINTIFF'S CASE:
3. Brief case of the plaintiff as per plaint is that she is the owner of the suit property bearing No. 36, situated at Khasra No. 137/17/2 and 18, Gali No. 6, Block No. A-2, West Sant Nagar, Delhi-84 consisting of Ground Floor to Third Floor. It is alleged that the suit property is a residential property and is used for residential purposes only. In the month of November 2025, Sh. Tajwar Singh was residing alongwith his family as a tenant on the ground floor. One Pankaj was residing as a tenant on one room on the first floor. Second Floor was lying vacant and Sh. Raushan Kumar was residing as a tenant in two rooms on the third floor. No commercial activities were going on from the premises and the electricity connections installed at each floor of the suit property by the defendant company were being used only for domestic purposes. Plaintiff used to pay Bills of all the connections timely and regularly.
4. On 21.11.2025, the officials of the defendant company conducted a vigilance inspection at the suit property and falsely and arbitrarily alleged that the property was being used for non domestic/commercial purposes in the form of a PG accomodation. On the basis of said incorrect and baseless allegation, the defendant company prepared an inspection report dated 21.11.2025 and, RCA DJ No.77/26 Vimla Kumari Pathak vs TPDDL Page no.2/17 thereafter, issued a provisionsl order of assessment dated 28.11.2025 alongwith provisional calculation sheet. On the basis of aforesaid illegal inspection, defendant company raised illegal and arbitrary bills all dated 07.02.2026 in respect of the four connections installed at the suit property total amounting to more than Rs. 1.40 lakh. During inspection, no document/license, sign board, register, receipt or any other evidence of running of a PG accommodation was found at the suit property. The defendant company illegally changed the electricity category from domestic to commercial. The electricity Bills dated 07.02.2026 have been raised solely on the basis of illegal inspection report dated 21.11.2025 and thus, the impugned inspection report, electricity bills are illegal and arbitrarily and are liable to be declared null and void. It is alleged that the officials from the defendant company are threatening to disconnect the electricity connection installed at the suit property, thereby withdrawing the basic necessity of the plaintiff resulting in irreparable loss and hardship to the plaintiff and her tenants.
5. On the basis of these facts, the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking a decree of declaration thereby declaring the inspection report dated 21.11.2025, provisional assessment order dated 28.11.2025 alongwith the provisional calculation sheet and the impugned electricity bills, all dated 07.02.2026 as illegal, arbitrarily, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff. A permanent injunction is sought restraining the defendant company from taking any coercive action on the basis of impugned inspection report, orders and bills. A RCA DJ No.77/26 Vimla Kumari Pathak vs TPDDL Page no.3/17 decree of mandatory injunction is also sought seeking a direction to the defendant company to withdraw/cancel the impugned inspection report, provisional assessment order and impugned bills.
STAND OF DEFENDANT
6. After service of the defendant company, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC was filed alleging that the subject premises/suit property was inspected by the Enforcement team of the defendant and the user was found violating provisions of Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003. The impugned Inspection Report, Provisional Assessment Order and impugned Electricity Bills have been raised under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003. Section 127 of Electricity Act provides a remedy to a person aggrieved by an order under Section 126 to file an appeal before the Competent Authority. Section 145 of Electricity Act, 2003 bars filing of a civil suit in respect of matters governed by Section 126 and 127 of the Act. Accordingly, there being a clear legal bar against filing of the present suit as contained in Section 145 of Electricity Act, rejection of the plaint was sought by the defendant company.
IMPUGNED ORDER :
7. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, Ld. Trial Court, vide impugned order dated 01.04.2026, rejected the suit of the plaintiff holding that the suit is barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is this order that is under challenge before this Court.
RCA DJ No.77/26 Vimla Kumari Pathak vs TPDDL Page no.4/17 GROUNDS OF APPEAL/ ARGUMENTS OF APPELLANT/ PLAINTIFF :
8. The plaintiff has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the same is erroneous and has led to miscarriage of justice. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the inspection report dated 21.11.2025 and the consequential provisional assessment order dated 28.11.2025 are arbitrary, illegal and do not fall within the ambit of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as no case of unauthorized use of electricity is made out agianst the plaintiff. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the case of the plaintiff was not hit by Section 145 of Electricity Act, 2003. Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that at the time of inspection, no documents were found to come to a finding that a PG was running from the suit property and, accordingly, the impugned bills were clearly inflated with malafide intention.
9. Ld. Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has argued in line with the grounds of appeal. It is alleged that the suit filed before Ld. Trial Court was duly maintainable as Section 126 of Electricity Act was not applicable to the facts of the case and, consequently, bar under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 does not come into picture. It is also argued that the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 were not duly complied with by the defendnat company as the final assessment order was passed only on 20.01.2026 i.e. after more than 30 days as provided in Section 126 of the Act. It is further submitted that Section 126 of the Electricity Act is applicable where RCA DJ No.77/26 Vimla Kumari Pathak vs TPDDL Page no.5/17 there is theft of electricity which is not the case herein as duly authorized electricity connections were installed at the suit property.
It is also alleged that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the citations relied upon by the plaintiff. In these circumstances, setting aside of the impugned order has been prayed.
10. Ld. Counsel for plaintff has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Sarjiwan Singh v. DVB 110 (2004) DLT 633 to stress upon the point that where a bill has been raised by the electricity department, a suit seeking injunction alongwith declaration to the effect that the Bill is incorrect or illegal can be filed by the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has also relied upon the reliance placed upon Sarjiwan's Singh case (supra) by Ld. ADJ-03, North District, Rohini Courts in Yogesh Nayyar v. TPDDL CS No. 821/16 and by Ld. Civil Judge-01, Central District in Deepak Santia v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. CS No. 2085/21. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff/appellant has also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Joginder Kumar Goyal v. BSES Rajdhani Pvt. Ltd. WP (C) 17658/2022 order dated 13.05.2025 to stress upon the point that use of a domestic connection in a premises being used for PG is not considered as a commercial use. Relying upon these judgments, setting aside of the impugned order is sought.
11. It is also submitted that after the rejection of the plaint and before deciding of the present appeal, the electricity connections in the suit property have been disconnected. Accordingly, their RCA DJ No.77/26 Vimla Kumari Pathak vs TPDDL Page no.6/17 restoration is also sought by way of a separate application filed by the appellant/plaintiff.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT/ DEFENDANT :
12. No written reply to the appeal has been filed by the defendant, but the appeal has been vehemently opposed. It is submitted that the impuged order is a well reasoned order passed after due appreciation of facts of the case. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order and it does not deserve any interference from this Court. It is submitted that impugned inspection report dated 21.11.2025 clearly mentions that it is an inspection under Section 126 and 135 of Electricity Act. While Section 126 Electricity Acts deals with the unauthorized use of electricity. Section 135 pertains to theft of electricity. After inspection, the provisional order of assessment dated 28.11.2025 was passed under Section 126 (1) of Electricity Act for unauthorized use of electricity and not under Section 135 for theft of electricity. Impugned order dated 28.11.2025 clearly mentions that date of personal hearing was fixed for 23.12.2025 following the principles of natural justice and it was only after personal hearing that the final order of assessment was passed on 20.01.2026. Consequently, the impugned bills dated 07.02.2026 were raised upon the plaintiff. The own document of plaintiff annexed at page No. 28 alongwith the plaint clearly shows that she had attended the personal hearing on 23.12.2025 and, accordingly, plaintiff cannot allege that the principals of natural justice have not been followed in the present matter before passing of the final assessment order and raising of impugned bills. As per Section 127 of Electricity Act any final order of RCA DJ No.77/26 Vimla Kumari Pathak vs TPDDL Page no.7/17 assessment passed under Section 126 is an appealable order and can be challenged before the Competent Authority. Section 145 of Electricity Act specifically bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter falling under Section 126 and 127 of the Act. Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiff was clearly barred under Section 145 of Electricity Act and Ld. Trial Court had rightly rejected the suit of the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC being barred by law. With these submissions, dismissal of the present appeal is sought.
13. Ld. Counsel for defendant has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in B L Kantroo v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. RFA OS No. 12/2008 decided on 25.09.2008 to point out the difference between the orders passed in the Section 126 and 135 of Electricity Act and the applicability of bar as contained in Section 145 of the Act.
FINDINGS ON THE APPEAL:
14. I have heard the submissions made and carefully perused the entire record, the impugned order, the documents filed on record by the parties as well as the citations relied upon by both the parties.
15. Before proceeding further to decide the present appeal, it is important to understand the provisions as contained in Section 126, 127, 135 and 145 of Electricity Act 2003. The relevant provisions are reproduced herein under for the sake of clarity :
RCA DJ No.77/26 Vimla Kumari Pathak vs TPDDL Page no.8/17
126. Assessment.-- (1) If on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or after inspection of records maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorised use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgment the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefited by such use.
(2). The order of provisional assessment shall be served upon the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises in such manner as may be prescribed.
[(3)The person, on whom an order has been served under sub- section (2), shall be entitled to file objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before the assessing officer, who shall, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person, pass a final order of assessment within thirty days from the date of service of such order of provisional assessment, of the electricity charges payable by such person.] (4) Any person served with the order of provisional assessment may, accept such assessment and deposit the assessed amount with the licensee within seven days of service of such provisional assessment order upon him.
[***] [(5) If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorised use of electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period during which such unauthorised use of electricity has taken place and if, however, the period during which such unauthorised use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection.] (6) The assessment under this section shall be made at a rate equal to twice the tariff rates applicable for the relevant category of services specified in sub-section (5). Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,-
(a)"assessing officer" means an officer of a State Government or Board or licensee, as the case may be, designated as such by the State Government;
(b)"unauthorised use of electricity" means the usage of electricity-
(i)by any artificial means; or
(ii)by a means not authorised by the concerned person or authority or licensee; or
(iii)through a tampered meter; or RCA DJ No.77/26 Vimla Kumari Pathak vs TPDDL Page no.9/17
(iv)for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised; or
(v) for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorised.
127. Appeal to appellate authority.-- (1) Any person aggrieved by the final order made under section 126 may, within thirty days of the said order, prefer an appeal in such form, verified in such manner and be accompanied by such fee as may be specified by the State Commission, to an appellate authority as may be prescribed.
(2)No appeal against an order of assessment under sub-section (1) shall be entertained unless an amount equal to [half of the assessed amount] is deposited in cash or by way of bank draft with the licensee and documentary evidence of such deposit has been enclosed along with the appeal.
(3) The appellate authority referred to in sub-section (1) shall dispose of the appeal after hearing the parties and pass appropriate order and send copy of the order to the assessing officer and the appellant.(
4)The order of the appellate authority referred to in sub-section (1) passed under sub-section (3) shall be final. (5)No appeal shall lie to the appellate authority referred to in sub-section (1) against the final order made with the consent of the parties.
(6)When a person defaults in making payment of assessed amount, he, in addition to the assessed amount shall be liable to pay, on the expiry of thirty days from the date of order of assessment, an amount of interest at the rate of sixteen per cent. per annum compounded every six months.
135. Theft of Electricity.-[(1) Whoever, dishonestly,-
(a)taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service wires, or service facilities of a licensee or supplier, as the case may be; or
(b)tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current reversing transformer, loop connection or any other device or method which interferes with accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; or
(c)damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electricity; or RCA DJ No.77/26 Vimla Kumari Pathak vs TPDDL Page no.10/17
(d)uses electricity through a tampered meter; or
(e)uses electricity for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised, so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both:
Provided that in a case where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use-
(i)does not exceed 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction the fine imposed shall not be less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity;
(ii)exceeds 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction, the sentence shall be imprisonment for a term not less than six months, but which may extend to five years and with fine not less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity:
Provided further that in the event of second and subsequent conviction of a person where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use exceeds 10 kilowatt, such person shall also be debarred from getting any supply of electricity for a period which shall not be less than three months but may extend to two years and shall also be debarred from getting supply of electricity for that period from any other source or generating station:
Provided also that if it is proved that any artificial means or means not authorised by the Board or licensee or supplier, as the case may be, exist for the abstraction, consumption or use of electricity by the consumer, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any abstraction, consumption or use of electricity has been dishonestly caused by such consumer. (1A)Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, may, upon detection of such theft of electricity, immediately disconnect the supply of electricity:
Provided that only such officer of the licensee or supplier, as authorised for the purpose by the Appropriate Commission or any other officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, of the rank higher than the rank so authorised shall disconnect the supply line of electricity:
Provided further that such officer of the licensee or supplier, as RCA DJ No.77/26 Vimla Kumari Pathak vs TPDDL Page no.11/17 the case may be, shall lodge a complaint in writing relating to the commission of such offence in police station having jurisdiction within twenty-four hours from the time of such disconnection:Provided also that the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, on deposit or payment of the assessed amount or electricity charges in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall, without prejudice to the obligation to lodge the complaint as referred to in the second proviso to this clause, restore the supply line of electricity within forty-eight hours of such deposit or payment;] (2)[Any officer of the licensee or supplier as the case may be, authorised] in this behalf by the State Government may-
(a)enter, inspect, break open and search any place or premises in which he has reason to believe that electricity has been or is being, used unauthorisedly;
(b)search, seize and remove all such devices, instruments, wires and any other facilitator or article which has been, or is being, used for unauthorised use of electricity;
(c)examine or seize any books of account or documents which in his opinion shall be useful for or relevant to, any proceedings in respect of the offence under sub-section (1) and allow the person from whose custody such books of account or documents are seized to make copies thereof or take extracts therefrom in his presence.
(3)The occupant of the place of search or any person on his behalf shall remain present during the search and a list of all things seized in the course of such search shall be prepared and delivered to such occupant or person who shall sign the list:
Provided that no inspection, search and seizure of any domestic places or domestic premises shall be carried out between sunset and sunrise except in the presence of an adult male member occupying such premises.
(4)The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), relating to search and seizure shall apply, as far as may be, to searches and seizure under this Act.
145. Civil court not to have jurisdiction.-- No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an assessing officer referred to in section 126 or an appellate authority referred to in section 127 or the adjudicating officer appointed under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.
RCA DJ No.77/26 Vimla Kumari Pathak vs TPDDL Page no.12/17
16. Perusal of the impugned inspection report dated 21.11.2025 and provisional assessment order dated 28.11.2025 clearly show that the inspection was made under Section 126 and 135 of Electricity Act. However, after inspection the provisional assessment order was made under Section 126(1) of Electricity Act and not under Section 135 of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has argued that the inspection and provisional assessment order done in the present matter are not covered under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. It has been argued that Section 126 of the Act governs the theft of electricity. However, bare perusal of the provisions contained in the Electricity Act as noted above clearly show that while Section 126 deals with unauthorized use of electricity, it is Section 135 of the Act which deals with the theft of electricity. Accordingly, in cases where there is tempering of meter or theft of electricity by any other mode, the provision of Section 135 is attracted. However, if there is an unauthorized use of electricity, the provision under Section 126 of Electricity Act is attracted. Explanation (b)(iv) to Section 126 of the Act clearly provides that unauthorized use of electricity means usage of electricity for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized. Perusal of the inspection report as well as provisional assessment order shows that the allegation against the plaintiff were for unauthorized use of electricity and not for theft of electricity as during inspection it was found that the electricity connections were being used for non-domestic purposes though they were provided only for domestic use. Accordingly, in the facts of the case, it is amply clear on record that the provision of Section 126 of RCA DJ No.77/26 Vimla Kumari Pathak vs TPDDL Page no.13/17 Electricity Act is attracted in the matter and not Section 135 of the Act.
17. The second limb of arguments of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff is that the inspection report dated 21.11.2025 does not mention that the concerned officials had found any kind of documentary evidence regarding running of a PG from the suit property. Also, the usage of electricity was found to be within limit and the usage for PG, if any, is not commercial use of electricity as per decision in Joginder Kumar Goyal's case (supra). Accordingly, it has been submitted that there are defects in the impugned inspection report as well as assessment order and the consequent impugned bills raised by the defendant company. Even, if the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff are treated to be gospel truth, they are arguments that need to be addressed in an appeal filed under Section 127 of the Electricity Act against the assessment order passed under Section 126 and not in a separate Civil Suit. This is moreso, as Section 145 of the Electricity Act categorically bars filling of any such Civil Suits in the matter governed by Section 126 and 127 of the Act.
18. It has been further argued by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that as per sub-Section 3 of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, a final order of assessment has to be passed within 30 days from the date of service of provisional assessment order after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned person. However, in the present case, the provisional assessment order is dated 28.11.2025 whereas the final assessment order has been passed only on 20.01.2026 making it beyond the period RCA DJ No.77/26 Vimla Kumari Pathak vs TPDDL Page no.14/17 of 30 days and accordingly, the provision as contained in Section 126 of Electricity Act has not been duly complied with and thus, the bar of Section 145 of the Act does not apply. I do not find any merit in these submission of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant. When the Electricity Act provides for filing of an appeal to the competent Authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act against any order of assessment passed under Section 126 of the Act, the objections regarding the manner in which the assessment is done are required to be taken only before the Competent Appellate Authority. This is moreso, when there is a specific bar against filing of Civil Suits in such cases as contained under Section 145 of the Act. In addition to this, as per letter of the plaintiff annexed at page no.28 along with the plaint, there is an admission that the plaintiff had received the original assessment order only on 08.12.2025 and was provided a personal hearing on 23.12.2025. Thus, even if there is a delay in passing of final assessment order, it is not so huge that it points towards any malafides on the part of the defendant sufficient to hold that because of the violation of the provisions under Section 126 of Electricity Act, the bar as contained in Section 145 of Electricity Act is not applicable.
19. I have also carefully gone through the various citations relied upon by the plaintiff. However, none of the said cases were in respect of an assessment order under Section 126 of Electricity Act. Sarjiwan Singh's case (supra), merely talks about the question of payment of Court Fees as well as requirement of seeking the relief of declaration that the bill raised by the defendant is incorrect or illegal before the RCA DJ No.77/26 Vimla Kumari Pathak vs TPDDL Page no.15/17 plaintiff can pray for an injunction against the recovery made on the basis of such bills. Yogesh Naiyar's case (supra), clearly deals with theft of electricity under Section 135 of Electricity Act as mentioned in paragraph no.2.4 of the judgment. The case of Deepak Santiya (supra) was in respect of removal of excess charges such as security deposit and late payment charges and not for declaration in respect of an assessment made under Section 126 of Electricity Act. Accordingly, none of these judgments are of any use to the case of the plaintiff.
20. The documents relied upon by the plaintiff himself makes it amply clear that he is challenging an assessment order made under Section 126 of Electricity Act which is an appealable order under Section 127 of the Act. Perusal of Section 145 of Electricity Act clearly shows that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is excluded for entertaining any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter covered under Section 126 or 127 of the Act. In view of ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Courts by Section 145 of Electricity Act for matters of unauthorized use of electricity covered under Section 126 and 127 of Electricity Act, I have no hesitation in holding that the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC being barred by law i.e. Section 145 of Electricity Act.
21. In view of the reasons given above, I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 01.04.2026 passed by Ld. Trial Court rejecting the suit of the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC being barred by law. The impugned order is a well reasoned order and RCA DJ No.77/26 Vimla Kumari Pathak vs TPDDL Page no.16/17 does not deserve any interference from this Court. No merit is found in the present appeal, the same is accordingly, is dismissed. The impugned order dated 01.04.2026 is upheld.
22. No order as the costs.
23. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
24. Since the appeal is dismissed, the application for restoration of electricity connection also stands dismissed.
25. Copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court along with TCR.
26. File be consigned to the Record Room. Digitally signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI SHARMA ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT SHARMA Date:
2026.04.16 TODAY i.e. 16TH APRIL 2026 16:12:58 +0530 (Shivali Sharma) District Judge-06, Central Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/16.04.2026 RCA DJ No.77/26 Vimla Kumari Pathak vs TPDDL Page no.17/17