PGVCL vs RAFIKBHAI JUSABBHAI SAMA — 84/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 07th April 2026.

RCA - REGULAR CIVIL APPEAL

CNR: GJGS010007142025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

84/2025

Filing Date

23-06-2025

Registration No

84/2025

Registration Date

23-06-2025

Court

District Court, Veraval

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Decision Date

07th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGEMENT

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 Section 96,

Petitioner(s)

PGVCL

Adv. K M ABHANI

Respondent(s)

RAFIKBHAI JUSABBHAI SAMA

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

07-04-2026

Disposed

25-03-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

09-03-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

04-02-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

03-01-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

Final Orders / Judgements

07-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary: The Principal District Judge, Gir-Somnath allowed the appeal by Paschim Gujarat Vij Company against the trial court's dismissal of its civil suit for recovery of Rs. 85,740.42 for electricity theft charges. The court held that civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain electricity-related recovery suits involving alleged theft, as such disputes fall outside Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which is handled by special courts. The trial judge's dismissal under CPC Order 7, Rule 11 was found erroneous and the matter was remanded for proper proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Principal District Judge, Gir-Somnath allowed the appeal by Paschim Gujarat Vij Company against the trial court's dismissal of its civil suit for recovery of Rs. 85,740.42 for electricity theft charges. The court held that civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain electricity-related recovery suits involving alleged theft, as such disputes fall outside Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which is handled by special courts. The trial judge's dismissal under CPC Order 7, Rule 11 was found erroneous and the matter was remanded for proper proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District Court, Veraval All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case