Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. - (1.) THIS is a case where the matter is being carried from one forum to the other unnecessarily when the appellant has not cared to take the relevant defences in its written statement filed before the trial Court. The suit was filed by an electricity consumer aggrieved by the disconnection of his electricity arising from a disputed bill. The appellant before us being electricity supplier entered appearance on 3.12.2012 when the consumer expressed his readiness to deposit the forty percent of the bill amount under protest. In view of the statement, recovery of balance amount of the bill was stayed with a direction to the consumer to pay future bills and the application was disposed of. There is nothing contained in the order dated 3.12.2012 to even suggest that the counsel, who had entered appearance for the electricity company, wanted to further contest the interlocutory order or that the interim arrangement was not acceptable to him which almost partakes the character of a consent order.
(2.) INSOFAR as the suit is concerned, time was granted to file the written statement which was subsequently filed. In this written statement, no plea of lack of jurisdiction and bar of suit under any statutory provision has at all been taken. There is only the first preliminary objection which states that the suit is "not maintainable", an aspect quite different from pleading bar of the jurisdiction of the civil Court on account of any statutory provision. While dealing with the paragraph of cause of action and jurisdiction, there is general denial while conceding to the territorial jurisdiction. It is not in issue that no application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was ever filed for rejection of the plaint on any ground, more specifically, there being bar of law. Insofar as the aspect of interim relief is concerned, in law, the same is an appealable order, but no appeal was filed against that order, possibly, because there has been really no contest even before the trial Court. On the other hand, the writ petition was filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for reasons best known to the appellant seeking to assail the order dated 3.12.2012. It is this writ petition, which was filed and pressed and a judgment invited from learned single Judge, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 9.7.2013.
(3.) IN the writ petition, the appellant before us had taken the solitary plea of bar of jurisdiction of the civil court in view of the provisions of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The learned single Judge has opined that this plea was not even raised before the civil court and the writ petition is misconceived while examining the effect of the provisions of Section 145 read with Sections 56 and 42 of the Electricity Act. It has been opined that the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred only to a limited extent, i.e., for matters arising out of the actions taken under Section 126 or 127 of the Electricity Act while the dispute in the present case falls within the scope of Section 56 of the Electricity Act. Insofar as the issue of appropriate relief to be considered only by the Tribunal is concerned, it has been opined that in the factual matrix of the case, there would be an option of remedy under Section 42(5) of the said Act or the civil Court.;