1

IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT JUDGE, SONEPAT

1. Amit Garg, S.D.O, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Sub

Division, Kharkhoda, District Sonipat.
2. Executive Engg. UHBVN, Fazilpur, Tehsil Kharkhoda,
District Sonipat.
3. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, C-16, Sector-6, Vidyut
Sadan, Panchkula through its Secretary.

… Appellants/Defendants

VERSUS

Sunil Kumar son of Sardar Singh, resident of Ward No. 9, Gali

No. 2, Barona Road, Kharkhoda, District Sonipat.

… Respondent/Plaintiff

State of Haryana through Collector, Sonipat.

…Performa Defendant

Civil appeal against the judgment and decree dated

15.07.2025 passed by the court of Ld. Addl. Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Kharkhoda, Sonepat in the civil suit
No.198 of 2017, by which the Ld. Court has decreed the
suit of the respondent/plaintiff.
—for setting aside the judgment and decree dated
15.07.2025 and for dismissal of the suit of the
respondent/plaintiff by way of acceptance of this appeal
U/s 96 of Civil Procedure Code.

Civil Suit No. Date of Instt. Date of decision

198 of 2017 07.07.2017 15.07.2025

Court fee Date of Instt. of Court fee for purpose of
appeal appeal

Rs.60/- Rs.60/-
 2

R/Sir,

The appellants/defendants most humbly and respectfully

submit as under:-

1. That the appellants-defendants prefer this appeal against the

impugned judgment and decree dated 15.07.2025 as cited
above on the following grounds:-

a) That the learned lower court failed to arrive at a just

decision of the facts and circumstances pleaded before the
learned lower court. It is respectfully submitted that the
impugned order being contrary to law is liable to be set-
aside on the basis of that the suit of the respondent/ plaintiff
was barred by jurisdiction. Section 145 of the Electricity
Act bars civil courts from granting injunction or
entertaining jurisdiction in electricity theft matters. By
granting relief contrary to this bar, the court exceeded its
jurisdiction. Moreover, this was a clear case of direct theft
of energy as the plaintiff was found using electricity
through burnt meter, but the Ld. Court ignored the statutory
presumption and procedure under Section 135 and 126 of
the Electricity Act, 2003, which allow for immediate
assessment and disconnection in case of direct theft.

In fact, on 16.01.2017 at about 12 noon the officials

of the defendants checked the premises and during
checking it was discovered that the plaintiff had been using
electricity through a burnt meter installed outside his
premises. It was a single phase meter. The meter was found
 3

burnt, thus, removed from the spot and packed following

the procedure provided in the official circular. The supply
was restored by installing a new three phase meter. At the
time of checking, report No. LL1-05940 dated 16.01.2017
was prepared and it was signed by one Naresh Kumar.
Notice was sent to the plaintiff to remain present at MT
Lab, Rohtak on 21.03.2017. The plaintiff remained present
at MT Lab, Rohtak on 21.03.2017 during examination of
the meter by the technician. After inspection at MT Lab, it
was reported that the meter was burnt due to some external
fire because all four terminal blocks in the meter were
found in faulty condition. The plaintiff had burnt the meter
to use electricity without payment. The plaintiff was found
using electricity through burnt meter which is a case of
theft. As such, notice [Link]/2017/815 dated
27.05.2017 was issued to the plaintiff demanding penalty of
Rs. 171803/-. Another notice [Link]/2017/816|
dated 27.05.2017 was issued demanding compounding fee
of the offence. Notice No. SDKHKD/2017/817 dated
27.05.2017 was also sent to SHO, police station Irrigation
and Power, Rohtak for lodging FIR against the plaintiff as
per mandate of Section 135 of the Electricity Act and then
FIR was registered. The assessment was made as per rules
and the plaintiff was asked to deposit the penalty amount.
The LL1 report and notices are quite, correct, legal, genuine
and binding on the rights of the plaintiff. The said checking
has been carried as per the rules and norms of the Nigam
 4

and the officials of the defendants were legally authorized

to check the premises of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is
legally bound to pay the penalty amount to the defendants.

But the Ld. Lower court did not consider the

documentary as well as oral evidence of the
appellants/defendants. The Ld. Lower court also did not
consider the material facts of the appellants/defendants that
the appellant/defendant no.1 had sent the notices as per
byelaws and sale circular of the Nigam and was entitled to
recover the said penalty of theft alongwith the
compounding fees from the respondent/plaintiff i.e. total of
Rs.1,96,803/- as mentioned in notices.

b) That the Ld. Trial Court wrongly shifted the burden of

proving the theft on the appellants/defendants even after
production of prima facie evidence, whereas the burden was
on the respondent to disprove the same, which he failed to
do. The impugned judgment prejudices public revenue
collection and service continuity.

c). That the Ld. Trial Court wrongly decided Issues in favour
of the plaintiff. The Court also ignored that no relief of
declaration or injunction could be granted under Section
145 of the Electricity Act.

d). That the impugned order is not based on the law as

applicable in the present matter in controversy. The learned
court has misconstrued and misapplied the law as is evident
from the impugned order. The learned lower court has
failed to appreciate the law cited at bar. The learned lower
 5

court did not properly appreciate the facts presented before

it and the contentions raised by the appellants/defendants
were rejected by saying meritless without discussing the
law as was pleaded by the appellants/defendants. The
respondents conducted a valid site inspection, issued
required notices and afforded the plaintiff a reasonable
opportunity to respond or compound. The record
demonstrates compliance with natural justice and
procedural fairness as mandated by law.

e) The trial court wrongly restrained the appellants from

recovering the assessed amount. This amounts to
interference in the statutory powers conferred upon the
electricity board to assess, penalize, and recover losses
arising from theft, as per Sections 135 of the Electricity
Act. Such restraint emboldens wrongdoers and undermines
public interest and deterrence against electricity theft.

f) That the learned trial court has failed to appreciate that the
LL-1 Report was prepared by the authorized checking team
of the Nigam on the spot during a routine raid at the
plaintiff’s premises, wherein it was specifically noted that
the plaintiff had committed direct theft of electricity for AP
purpose. The Trial Court failed to give due weight to this
statutory report, which forms the foundation of the
assessment memo. It is a document prepared in discharge of
official duty and carries a presumption of correctness unless
proved false, which the plaintiff has failed to rebut by any
cogent or admissible evidence. The LL1 report thus fully
 6

justifies the issuance of the theft memo and the impugned

judgment dated 15.07.2025 is unsustainable for ignoring
this crucial piece of evidence.

g) That the Ld. Trial court failed to consider that electricity

theft is a serious offence, and action taken by the
appellants/defendants was strictly in accordance with the
law. The assessment memo and compounding notice were
issued as per the provisions of the Electricity Act, and due
procedure was followed.

h) That the appellants/defendants respectfully submits that the

learned trial court has failed to appreciate the settled legal
position as laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab
and Haryana in RSA No.4181 of 2016, titled “Mahesh
Kumar vs. Sub Divisional Officer & Another,” decided on
14.05.2025, wherein it was held that the jurisdiction of civil
courts is barred under Section 145 of the Act. The appellant
craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to rely upon the said
authority as it directly supports the legal issue involved in
the present appeal. The impugned judgment is thus contrary
to the settled law and deserves to be set aside.

2. That the learned lower court has wrongly reached on the

conclusion by decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent,
rather the suit of the plaintiff/respondent is liable to be
dismissed with costs as suit for permanent injunction was
not maintainable.

3. That the learned lower court has miserably failed to

appreciate the evidence of the appellants/defendants.
 7

4. That the learned lower court has also grossly erred in

believing the evidence of the respondents/plaintiffs.

5. That the learned lower court did not properly appreciate the
facts and the documentary evidence and also the law and
wrongly decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent.

6. That the whole finding of the learned lower court for

decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent are erroneous,
which amount to prejudice and loss to the
appellants/defendants.

7. That the whole finding of the learned lower court for

accepting the suit of the plaintiff/respondent, which is
nothing, but only a biased in nature towards the
appellants/defendants, resulting into miscarriage of justice
to the appellants/defendants.

8. That it is a settled low that what cannot be done directly,

cannot be allowed to be done indirectly.

9. That the finding of the Ld. Trial Court is not sustainable in

the eyes of law and is liable to be set-aside.

10. That the impugned order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the

Ld. Lower court is not a speaking order and is based on
conjectures and surmises and cannot stand to the test of
judicial scrutiny.

It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated

15.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Lower court may kindly be
set-aside and the present appeal of the
 8

appellants/defendants may kindly be accepted with costs

throughout to meet the ends of justice.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble court may deem

fit and property in the circumstances of the case be also
awarded to the appellants/defendants.

Appellants/Defendants
Dated S.D.O, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Sub
Division, Kharkhoda, District Sonipat and on
behalf of appellants/respondents no.2 and 3.

Through Counsel
 9

IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT JUDGE, SONEPAT

SDO, UHBVNL & Ors --Appellants/Defendants

Versus

Sunil Kumar ---Respondent/Plaintiff

Civil Appeal

AFFIDAVIT

I, , S.D.O, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Sub

Division, Kharkhoda, District Sonipat do hereby solemnly affirm
and declare as under:-
1. That the deponent has got filed the above titled appeal
alongwith an application for condonation of delay before
the Hon'ble court.
2. That the facts mentioned in the Grounds of Appeal and the
accompanying application are true and correct to my
knowledge and belief and to avoid repetition, the same may
kindly be read as part of this affidavit.

Deponent

Verification:- Verified that the contents of the above affidavit are

true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Verified at Sonepat Deponent

On
 10

IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT JUDGE, SONEPAT

SDO, UHBVNL & Ors. --Appellants/Defendants

Versus

Sunil Kumar ---Respondent/Plaintiff

Civil Appeal

APPLICATION FOR STAY

R/Sir,

The applicant/appellant/defendant most humbly and

respectfully submit as under:-

1. That the applicants/appellants/ defendants have got filed the

above titled appeal before the Hon'ble’ble court, which is

most likely to succeed on the grounds mentioned in the

Grounds of Appeal which may kindly be read as part of this

application.

2. That the learned lower court has passed absolutely an

impugned judgment and decree dated 15.07.2025, which is

liable to be set aside. The plaintiff/respondent in the grab of

judgement and decree have threatened the

appellants/defendants to execute the judgement and decree,

in the event the appellants/defendants will suffer irreparable

 11

loss and legal injury which cannot be compensated in any

manner.

3. That the applicants/appellants/defendants have good prima

facie case and balance of convenience are also in their

favour.

It is, therefore, prayed that the operation of the

judgement and decree dated 15.07.2025 may kindly be

stayed till the final disposal of the above noted appeal, in

the interest of justice.

Verification Applicants/Appellants

Verified that the contents S.D.O, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam,
of the above application Sub Division, Kharkhoda, District Sonipat
are true and correct to the and on behalf of appellants/respondents
best of my knowledge no.2 and 3
and belief.
Verified at Sonepat
On

Through Counsel
 12

IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT JUDGE, SONEPAT

SDO, UHBVNL & Ors. --Appellants/Defendants

Versus

Sunil Kumar ---Respondent/Plaintiff

Civil Appeal

Application for Stay

Affidavit

I, , S.D.O, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Sub

Division, Kharkhoda, District Sonipat do hereby solemnly affirm
and declare as under:-
1. That the deponent has got filed the above titled appeal
alongwith an application for stay before the Hon'ble court.
2. That the facts mentioned in the Grounds of Appeal and the
accompanying application are true and correct to my
knowledge and belief and to avoid repetition, the same may
kindly be read as part of this affidavit.

Deponent

Verification:- Verified that the contents of the above affidavit are

true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Verified at Sonepat Deponent

On