Amit Rawal, J. - (1.) For the reasons stated in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, order dated 25.02.2016 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. C.M. stands allowed. C.M.No.14398-C of 2015 For the reasons stated in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 332 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. RSA No.5811 of 2015 (O&M)
(2.) Challenge in the present appeal is to the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby, the suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that the demand of the defendants calling upon the plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs.3,94,395/- on account of alleged theft of energy on the basis of checking report dated 11.11.2008, has been dismissed on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction.
(3.) Mr. Rahul Gautam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff submits that the case would not squarely cover under the provisions of Section 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "2003 Act") as provisions of both Sections are overlapping. He relies upon the decisions of this Court rendered in RSA No.4054 of 2013 titled as Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others vs. M/s Sirohi Medical Centre, decided on 12.10.2015 and as well as, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Panchkula and others vs. Poonam Vashisth, 2009 2 RCR(Civ) 677. He further submits that the Court below have abdicated in dismissing the suit as it is fit case where the matter should have been remanded back because the department did not initiate the proceedings under Section 126 of 2003 Act by issuing the provisional assessment order, much less, final order in view of the provisions of Section 145 of 2003 Act, plaintiff is left in lurch, and thus, there is illegality and perversity in the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below.;