Sudhir Mittal,J. - (1.) The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration that demand made in the electricity bill payable on 13.10.2017, was illegal and thus, was not recoverable. Consequent relief of injunction was also sought. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court and appeal was dismissed by the learned first appellate Court. A decree has been passed that the amount mentioned in the aforementioned bill, is not recoverable and that memos dated 10.8.2017, are illegal and no recovery can be effected on their basis.
(2.) On the basis of the respective pleadings, it can be deduced that the premises of the plaintiff-respondent was checked on 8.8.2017 and it was allegedly found that he was consuming more than the connected load. Thus, notices dated 10.8.2017 (Ex. D-4 and D-5) were issued under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for alleged theft of electricity. A provisional order of assessment was drawn up, but the same was never communicated to the plaintiff-respondent and the amount so assessed was reflected in the bill payable on 13.10.2017, which led to the filing of the present suit.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that in view of Section 145 of the Act, the civil Court had no jurisdiction and thus, the impugned judgments are a nullity. He has also submitted that the issue regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court is pending before a Division Bench of this Court pursuant to reference order dated 21.12.2016 passed in RSA-4181-2016 and RSA-4928-2016. Thus, this matter be also referred to the Division Bench as the Courts below have erroneously rejected the objection of the appellants that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in this matter.;