Delhi District Court
Shyam Sunder Sharma vs Bses Yamuna Power Ltd on 25 April, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHUCHI LALER, ADMINISTRATIVE
CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER
(NORTH-EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
Suit No. 88/13
Unique Case ID No.:- 02402C0101592013
In the matter of :-
Shyam Sunder Sharma
s/o Sh. Bhagwat Prasad
r/o B-207, Gali No. 10, Village Gokalpur,
Delhi-94. ....Plaintiff
Versus
BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.
through its Chairman,
Shakti Kiran Building,
Karkardooma, Delhi - 92. ...Defendant
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall decide an application under Order 7 rule 11 r/w section 151 CPC moved on behalf of the defendant.
2. In brief, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present application are as follows : -
The plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration and mandatory injunction. The plaintiff has stated that he is using the electricity supply from non domestic connection having sanctioned load of 11 KW vide CA No. 100053396 and CRN No. 1260075118 installed in his name at the address bearing no. B-207, Gali no. 10, Village Gokalpur, Delhi-94. The plaintiff has claimed that he has been regularly paying the bills as and when raised by the defendant and there are no dues remaining upon the plaintiff or on the premises of the plaintiff. It has been alleged that on 22-02-2013 and on SC No. 88/13 Page 1 of 6 23-02-2013, the officials of the defendant visited the premises of the plaintiff and tried to remove the electricity connection. The officials of the defendant extended the threat that no one can stop them from disconnecting the electricity supply and removing the electricity meter. The plaintiff lodged a complaint at PS Gokal Puri but the police officials advised the plaintiff that he should approach the civil court. It has been alleged that on 26-02-2013, the officials of the defendant again visited the premises of the plaintiff and without giving any notice, forcibly disconnected the electricity supply and removed the electricity meter. The plaintiff has also alleged that the defendant has made a false and fabricated case against the plaintiff and his wife which is pending adjudication in the court of Dr. Shahabuddin, Learned Special Judge, BSES, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and in the said case, the plaintiff has already made a payment of Rs.6 lacs to the defendant. The defendant had also disconnected the electricity supply and removed the electricity meter vide CA No. 100066803 and CR No. 1260054491 installed at the premises of plaintiff's wife namely Ms. Manisha Sharma and a case with respect to the aforesaid disconnection is pending adjudication in the court of Sh. Anil Kumar, Ld. JSCC, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
The defendant had earlier also disconnected the electricity supply, the plaintiff had filed a civil suit no. 66/13 and before the NDOH, the defendant had installed an electricity meter no. 17072883 at the premises of the plaintiff on 14-03-2013 by saying that it was removed due to negligence of the lower division staff of the defendant company and on 22-03-2013, the plaintiff had withdrawn the said civil suit. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant has illegally removed his new electricity meter no. 17072883 on 20-03-2013 and the plaintiff SC No. 88/13 Page 2 of 6 has no other alternative and efficacious remedy except to file the present suit.
3. On 18-04-2013, an application u/o 7 Rule 11 r.w.s. 151 CPC has been moved on behalf of the defendant wherein it has been stated that the electricity of the premises of the plaintiff has been disconnected on account of theft of electricity. The plaintiff has been found to be the user of the connection registered in the name of his wife Smt. Manisha Sharma. The meter has been removed along with service line on account of enforcement dues of Rs.97,93,071/-. The electricity has been disconnected on account of pending dues, hence, it is mandatory for the plaintiff to seek relief of declaration qua the bill and the plaintiff shall value the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction on bill amount, accordingly, this court has no jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter. It has been also stated that this court has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present case as the issue involved is of theft of electricity and is covered u/s 135 of the Electricity Act. Thus, it has been prayed that the plaint is liable to be rejected as this court has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present case.
4. Reply has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff wherein it has been stated that the application is not maintainable in its present form. The plaintiff has denied that the electricity of the premises has been disconnected as dues are pending against the premises on account of theft of electricity upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant has raised a false bill of Rs.97,93,071/- and a false case of theft has been booked against the plaintiff and his wife, however, the plaintiff has already made a payment of a sum of Rs.6 lacs. It has been stated that the defendant is forcibly trying to impose the outstanding bill upon the plaintiff as well as upon his wife and the SC No. 88/13 Page 3 of 6 defendant has illegally disconnected the electricity supply of the premises of the plaintiff and also of the premises of his wife. The plaintiff have stated that the present application has been filed with an intention to harass, humiliate him and to delay the proceedings. It has been prayed that the present application be dismissed with heavy cost.
5. I have heard Sh. Puran Sharma, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff and Ms. Ritu Gupta, ld. counsel for the defendant and perused the record with their assistance.
6. Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, inter alia, mandates rejection of plaint where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. An application under this provision is to be decided entirely on a perusal of plaint and documents filed along with it. Defence of the defendant is not relevant for the purpose of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code nor can it be looked into.
In M/s Texem Engineering Vs. M/s. Texcomash Export, 179 (2011) Delhi Law Times 963, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that "There can be no gainsaying that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint has to be decided entirely on a perusal of the plaint and documents filed along with it".
7. In the instant case, the plaintiff has averred in his plaint, that the officials of the defendant have made a false and fabricated case upon him and his wife which is pending adjudication before Ld. Special Judge, BSES, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The plaintiff has filed on record meter removal order dated 30.03.13 wherein it has been mentioned that meter has been removed on account of enforcement dues of Rs.97,93,071/- against case ID No.YM-90-0700073. The SC No. 88/13 Page 4 of 6 plaintiff has also filed on record assessment bill for theft (direct theft) dated 06.07.07 of Rs.97,19,806/- wherein the plaintiff has been shown as the user. On the basis of aforesaid documents filed by the plaintiff, it can be gauged that electricity supply of the plaintiff has been disconnected on account of the pending direct theft bill raised against him. Though, the plaintiff has merely sought the relief of declaration to the effect that the act and conduct of the defendant disconnecting the electricity supply be declared illegal and unwarranted. A meaningful recording of the plaint would reveal that in effect the plaintiff is challenging the direct theft bill before this court as his electricity supply has been disconnected solely on account of non-payment of direct theft bill amount raised by the defendant.
8. Any dispute about civil liability in theft cases is impliedly excluded from the jurisdiction of the civil court in view of the Electricity Act wherein the special court has got the jurisdiction to determine any dispute regarding the quantum of civil liability specifically in theft cases and the said court can act as civil court as well as criminal court while adjudicating the cases before it.
In B.L. Kantroo Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 154 (2008) DLT 56, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed in Page 28 : " It is well settled that the exclusion of jurisdiction of civil Court cannot be readily inferred and the normal rule is that civil Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature except those of which cognizance by them is either expressly or impliedly excluded. The scheme of the Electricity Act is complete in itself and thereby the jurisdiction of the civil Court to take cognizance of the cases under the Act, by necessary implication, stood barred. The Act provides for the jurisdiction of the Tribunals and / or appropriate forum and also hierarchy of appeals or revisions SC No. 88/13 Page 5 of 6 and gives finality to the orders passed thereunder. This also necessarily implies that the jurisdiction of the civil Court to take cognizance of the suit of civil nature covered under Electricity Act stands excluded. Consumer cannot approach civil Court without exhausting alternative remedies provided under Electricity Act".
9. In view of the aforementioned legal proposition, it is apparent that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit and the plaintiff has to avail the remedy provided under the Electricity Act. The suit appears to be barred by the provisions of the Electricity Act, accordingly, the plaint is rejected u/o 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC. No order as to costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (SHUCHI LALER)
on 25-04-2013 ACJ/ARC (NE),
KKD COURTS, DELHI.
SC No. 88/13 Page 6 of 6
SC No. 88/13 Page 7 of 6