Punjab-Haryana High Court
P.S.E.B. Etc vs M/S.Laxmi Food Products on 12 December, 2025
RSA-1379-1999 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-1379-1999 (O&M)
Reserved on : 10.12.2025
Pronounced on :-12.12.2025
Uploaded on :-15.12.2025
Punjab State Electricity Board and others
... Appellants
Versus
M/s Laxmi Food Products
... Respondent
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate and
Mr. Sylvester, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Daman Dhir, Advocate with
Ms. Pushpanjali, Advocate;
Mr. Anmol Rai Garg, Advocate and
Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)
1. The appellants/defendants, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06.11.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala whereby the well-reasoned judgment and decree dated 08.05.1998 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nabha was erroneously reversed respectfully invokes the appellate jurisdiction of this Court through the instant Regular Second Appeal (for short to be referred as "RSA"). The appellant seeks restoration of the decree rightly rendered by the Trial Court and appropriate redressal for the substantial injustice occasioned.
1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 16-12-2025 03:21:42 ::: RSA-1379-1999 (O&M) -:2:- 1.1. It is most respectfully submitted that the impugned judgment and decree are vitiated by palpable perversity, foundational errors of law, and a manifestly flawed appreciation of evidence, culminating in grave miscarriage of justice. The appellants, therefore, earnestly prays for the setting aside of the impugned judgment and decree and for reinstatement of the lawful and well-considered decree of the learned Trial Court.
2. Briefly stated, that the respondent/plaintiff, a registered firm and consumer under Account No. IMS-62, operates a rice sheller adjacent to M/s Lakshmi Food Corporation (Account No. IMS-61), which is independently owned and run. The respondents, who previously issued separate electricity bills, threatened to unilaterally club the two connections and issue a consolidated Large Supply ("L.S." for short) bill. The plaintiff contends that such action is illegal, arbitrary, exceeds the respondents' powers, violates the parties' agreement, and would alter its electricity category. Despite requests to desist, the respondents have issued the L.S. bill. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking to restrain the respondents from merging the connections, issuing or recovering consolidated bills, taking any prejudicial action, and from disconnecting the electricity connection under Account No. IMS-62.
2.1. Upon issuance of notice, the respondents appeared and, in their written statement, admitted that the appellant is a consumer under Account No. IMS-62 and that the connections to the appellant and M/s Lakshmi Food Corporation (IMS-61) were originally separate. They contended that the intervening wall between the premises was partially demolished at three points, interlinking the connections without prior approval. Following 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 16-12-2025 03:21:42 ::: RSA-1379-1999 (O&M) -:3:- inspection on 17.12.1996, a revised Large Supply bill of Rs. 16,563/- was issued, mandating submission of A and A forms and installation of a dedicated transformer. The respondents allege that the plaintiff approached the Court with suppressed facts, malafide intent, lacking locus standi, rendering the suit frivolous, vexatious, and liable to dismissal with costs.
3. Both parties were granted full opportunity to adduce evidence pursuant to the framing of issues. Upon consideration of the entire material on record, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit with following observations:-
"In view of the discussions, the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed on the ground that the civil Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the claim. It is, however, clarified that the plaintiff is at liberty to approach the appropriate statutory or competent authority for redressal of its grievances, which shall examine and decide the matter expeditiously, in accordance with law and ensuring due consideration to all relevant facts and submissions"
3.1. The appeal preferred by the respondent/appellant was accpeted with following observations:-
"For the reasons recorded, the appeal is allowed, and the judgment and decree under appeal are set aside. The plaintiff is granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from clubbing connections Nos. IMS-61 and IMS-62, from issuing any consolidated Large Supply bill, recovering amounts thereon, or taking any action adverse to the plaintiff's rights as 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 16-12-2025 03:21:42 ::: RSA-1379-1999 (O&M) -:4:- a consumer under IMS-62, including disconnection. The defendants, however, remain at liberty to act in accordance with applicable Board regulations, circulars, or for any unauthorized consumption, including theft, if established."
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have conducted a thorough, detailed, and exhaustive scrutiny of the entire record.
5. As regards the scope of second appeal, it is now a settled proposition of law that in Punjab and Haryana, second appeals preferred are to be treated as appeals under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not under Section 100 CPC. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs and others V/s Chandrika and others, (2016)6 SCC 157, followed by the judgments in the case of Kirodi (since deceased) through his LR V/s Ram Parkash and others, (2019) 11 SCC 317 and Satender and others V/s Saroj and others, 2022(12) Scale 92. Relying upon the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, no question of law is required to be framed.
6. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the learned Civil Court lacks jurisdiction in view of the instructions contained in Circular No. 78/95 dated 15.09.1995 issued by the Board.
7. This very issue has, however, been authoritatively examined and conclusively settled by the Full Bench of this Court in M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and another, 2004(1) I.L.R. Punjab & Haryana 304. The Full Bench held that the jurisdiction of the civil Court cannot be deemed to be ousted merely on the 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 16-12-2025 03:21:42 ::: RSA-1379-1999 (O&M) -:5:- basis of the scheme framed under Section 79 of the Electricity Act, and that Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure continues to vest civil Courts with the competence to adjudicate disputes arising between consumers and the Board. The relevant extract from the judgment reads as follows:-
"In view of the principles of bar of jurisdiction referred to above, we answer question No. 1 referred for the decision of this Bench and hold that the jurisdiction of the civil Court cannot be said to be impliedly barred in terms of Section 9 of the Code on the basis of the scheme framed under Section 79 of the Act."
8. In light of the above authoritative pronouncement, the contention raised by the appellants/defendants that the civil Court lacks jurisdiction is fully answered. It is, therefore, well-established that the civil Court retains jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present matter. In culmination of the above deliberation, the appeal is adjudged untenable and is, therefore, dismissed.
9. Since the main matter has been adjudicated and stands concluded by the dismissal of the present appeal, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly, as no further orders are required to be passed therein.
( VIRINDER AGGARWAL)
12.12.2025 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 16-12-2025 03:21:42 :::