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
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
Petitioner(s)
PGVCL
Adv. K M ABHANI
Respondent(s)
RAFIKBHAI JUSABBHAI SAMA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts