Samapti Chatterjee, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed the present revisional application assailing the order No. 13 dated 20th January, 2015 passed by the Learned Judge, Bench -VIII, City Civil Court, Calcutta in T.S. No. 118 of 2014 (Ram Nivas Shaw vs C.E.S.C Limited & Anr).
(2.) THE case of the petitioner/CESC Company Limited is that plaintiff/opposite party is a consumer of electricity under the CESC Limited, Kolkata, North Region office. The plaintiff/opposite party applied before the petitioner/defendant for installation of a new meter in premises being No. 166A, Ahiritola Street, Kolkata. Inspection took place and the plaintiff/opposite party was directed to pay the earnest money and thereafter accordingly on 28th November, 2013 the CESC Company Limited installed the meter in the name of the plaintiff/opposite party at the said premises. Since the plaintiff/opposite party was threatened by the defendant/petitioner to disconnect the electricity to the plaintiff/opposite party's premises, therefore, the plaintiff/opposite party filed the said suit and when the petition was pending the petitioner illegally disconnected the supply of the electricity to the plaintiff/opposite party's premises on 5th July, 2014 as a result thereof the plaintiff/opposite party filed a petition under Section 151 for restoration of the electric supply to the plaintiff/opposite party's premises. It also appears that in the notice of disconnection the allegation of pilferage was mentioned by the CESC Limited and an amount of Rs. 3,48,609/ - was payable therefor. The said application of the plaintiff under Section 151 of the CPC was allowed by the Learned Judge, Bench -VIII, City Civil Court, Calcutta by directing the defendant/petitioner to restore the electricity connection to the meter No. 4896467 of the plaintiff immediately within seven days from the date of payment of Rs. 40,345/ - by the plaintiff/opposite party to the CESC Limited. Hence, the present revisional application.
(3.) MR . U.S. Bhattacharya learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is irregular, illegal and at the same time bad in law as the said Court has no jurisdiction to try the said suit. Under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, filing of suit before any Civil Court against disconnection of electricity is barred. The said Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is quoted below: - "Section 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." Therefore, the City Civil Court, Calcutta has no jurisdiction to entertain/try the said issue of disconnection.;