Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Gujarat Electricity Board (now Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd.), filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree of the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Amreli, in Regular Civil Appeal No.48 of 2003 dated 19.01.2004, which had dismissed the Board's appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Dhari, in Regular Civil Suit No.75 of 1999. The original suit was filed by the Board against the respondent, Pragjibhai Bhagwanbhai Patolia, to recover a bill amount of Rs. 44,373.77 paise with interest, alleging that on 23.12.1997, the respondent was found to have committed theft of electricity by using a direct connection with a 100 KVA transformer and a 10 H.P. submersible pump in his field. The respondent denied the theft and contended that the suit was not maintainable as the Board had not followed the proper procedure. The trial court decreed the suit in part, and the appellate court dismissed the Board's appeal. The second appeal was admitted on three substantial questions of law: (A) whether civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain the contention regarding theft of electricity; (B) whether the courts below ought to have entertained the defence despite the existence of an appellate committee; and (C) whether the respondent can take the defence of non-commission of theft despite not pursuing the statutory appeal. The High Court, after hearing the appellant's counsel, found that the courts below had correctly held that civil courts have jurisdiction to decide the issue of theft and that the respondent could raise the defence of non-commission of theft even if he did not pursue the statutory appeal. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgments of the courts below.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court dismissed the second appeal as no substantial question of law arose; the courts below had correctly held that civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain the defence of non-commission of theft of electricity, and the existence of a statutory appellate forum does not oust the jurisdiction of civil courts to decide the issue of theft in a suit for recovery of bill amount (Paras 1-8).
B) Electricity Law - Theft of Electricity - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Indian Electricity Act, 1910 / Electricity Act, 2003 - The respondent-defendant was sued for recovery of bill amount on allegation of theft; the courts below allowed the defence that no theft was committed; the High Court held that the civil court has jurisdiction to decide the issue of theft and the defendant can raise such defence even if he did not pursue the statutory appeal (Paras 2-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain the defence of non-commission of theft of electricity when a statutory appellate forum exists under the conditions of supply.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose. The judgments of the courts below were confirmed.
Law Points
- Civil court jurisdiction
- Electricity theft
- Statutory appeal
- Section 100 CPC
- Substantial question of law
Case Details
2026 LawText (GUJ) (01) 474
R/Second Appeal No. 21 of 2005
Mr. Dipak R. Dave for the Appellant(s) No. 1; Refused Served (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
Gujarat Electricity Board now Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd
Pragjibhai Bhagwanbhai Patolia
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal under Section 100 CPC challenging concurrent findings in a suit for recovery of electricity bill amount on allegation of theft.
Remedy Sought
Appellant (Electricity Board) sought to set aside the judgments of the courts below which had allowed the respondent's defence of non-commission of theft.
Filing Reason
The appellant contended that the civil courts lacked jurisdiction to entertain the defence of theft as a statutory appellate forum existed.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed the suit in part; first appellate court dismissed the Board's appeal; second appeal admitted on substantial questions of law.
Issues
Whether civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain the contention regarding theft of electricity?
Whether the courts below ought to have entertained the defence of the respondent despite the existence of an appellate committee?
Whether the respondent can take the defence of non-commission of theft despite not pursuing the statutory appeal?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the civil courts have no jurisdiction to decide the issue of theft as a statutory appellate forum exists under the conditions of supply.
Appellant argued that the respondent should have pursued the statutory appeal and cannot raise the defence in the civil suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The existence of a statutory appellate forum does not oust the jurisdiction of civil courts to decide the issue of theft of electricity in a suit for recovery of bill amount. The defendant can raise the defence of non-commission of theft even if he did not pursue the statutory appeal.
Judgment Excerpts
This Second Appeal under section 100 of CPC challenges judgment and decree passed by learned Extra Assistant Judge, Amreli in Regular Civil Appeal No.48 of 2003 dated 19.01.2004 by which learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of appellant in turn confirming judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge, Dhari in Regular Civil Suit No.75 of 1999.
This Second Appeal was admitted on following substantial question of law by order dated 15.03.2005 :- (A) Whether the Courts below (Civil Courts) are having jurisdiction to entertain the contention of the respondent with regard to the theft of electricity? (B) Whether the Courts below ought to have entertained the defence of the respondent - original defendant inspite of the fact that Appellate Committee of the Board is the proper authority to look into the factum of commission of theft by the respondent? (C) Whether the respondent can take defence of non-commission of power theft in suit filed by the Board inspite of the fact that the respondent has not pursued the statutory appeal which is provided against the theft under the conditions?
Procedural History
Original plaintiff (GEB) filed Regular Civil Suit No.75 of 1999 for recovery of bill amount. Trial court decreed the suit in part. The Board appealed to the District Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.48 of 2003, which was dismissed on 19.01.2004. The Board then filed the present Second Appeal No.21 of 2005, which was admitted on 15.03.2005 on three substantial questions of law. The High Court dismissed the second appeal on 07.01.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 100
