P.G.V.C.L. PANSHINA SUB DIVISION vs HAMIRBHAI HARJIBHAI GALTHARA — 496/2025
Case under Electricity Act, 2003 Section 135. Disposed: Uncontested--REJECTED on 24th March 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJSN030023052025
Filing Number
496/2025
Filing Date
09-Dec-2025
Registration No
496/2025
Registration Date
09-Dec-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, LIMBDI
Judge
22-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
24-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--REJECTED
Last updated 29-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.P.G.V.C.L. PANSHINA SUB DIVISION
Adv. H N RAVAL
Respondent(s)
-
1.HAMIRBHAI HARJIBHAI GALTHARA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
Order
Case Summary: RCS/496/2025 Court Decision: The civil suit filed by P.G.V.C.L. Panshina Sub Division against Hamirbhai Harjibhai Galthara for recovery of damages due to electricity theft was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC for lack of jurisdiction. Key Reasoning: The court held that disputes concerning civil liability in electricity theft cases under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of Special Courts established under Section 153, not civil courts. While Section 145 lacks an express bar, the court found an *implied* jurisdictional bar based on Section 154(5), which empowers only Special Courts to determine civil liability for theft. Therefore, the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain this suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Mar-2026
Disposed
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
07-Mar-2026
Order
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
17-Feb-2026
Hearing
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
22-Jan-2026
Summons - Notice
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
09-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 496/2025
Case Summary: RCS/496/2025 Court Decision: The civil suit filed by P.G.V.C.L. Panshina Sub Division against Hamirbhai Harjibhai Galthara for recovery of damages due to electricity theft was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC for lack of jurisdiction. Key Reasoning: The court held that disputes concerning civil liability in electricity theft cases under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of Special Courts established under Section 153, not civil courts. While Section 145 lacks an express bar, the court found an *implied* jurisdictional bar based on Section 154(5), which empowers only Special Courts to determine civil liability for theft. Therefore, the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain this suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts