Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 13 Civ Suit 213/25
SANTOSH SHARMA
Vs.
BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED
14.11.2025
Present: Sh. B.N. Singh, Ld. counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. Prashant Kumar Sharma, Ld. counsel for defendant.
Arguments advanced on an application u/o 7 Rule 11
CPC.
It is submitted on behalf of applicant that there is no
cause of action against the defendant. The plaintiff filed the suit in
order to usurp the outstanding electricity charges payable by plaintiff.
The electricity connection bearing CA No. 351025845 had been
installed at premises 2142 on temporary basis for parking in front of
community centre site no. 38, DDA Janta Flat, Nand Nagri, Delhi in
the name of Sh. Shobhit Tiwari on the guarantee of Dinesh Chand
Sharma i.e. husband of plaintiff. It is further submitted that the
guarantor was the consumer of the defendant vide permanent
electricity connection bearing CA No. 151802499 installed at
premises no. D-11, Ground Floor, Rect-7, Killa-16, Gali No. 4, Ankur
Enclave, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. The electricity charges to sum of Rs.
49,572/- are due against CA No. 351025845 and the same was
disconnected due to non-payment and notice was issued to
guarantor/husband of plaintiff. So the dues of Rs. 49,572/- were
transferred to live connection of guarantor/husband of plaintiff namely
Dinesh Chand. On 04.03.2025, the suit premises of plaintiff was
visited and found that the electricity was being supplied illegally to
disconnected premises i.e. premises no. D-11, Ground Floor, Rect-7,
Killa-16, Gali No. 4, Ankur Enclave, Karawal Nagar, Delhi that is to
say that the plaintiff was supplying the electricity in illegal manner to
-- 1 of 4 --
Dinesh Chand, who is guilty of non-payment of dues of Rs. 49,572/-.
It is further submitted that the plaintiff also not paid the electricity
charges of the connection in her name in premises no. D-11, Ground
Floor, Rect-7, Killa-16, Gali No. 4, Ankur Enclave, Karawal Nagar,
Delhi, so the total dues against plaintiff with regard to temporary
connection at parking in front of community centre site as well as in
the parking of D-11 accrues to be Rs. 69,444/-. The dues of one
connection to another connection has been transferred in consonance
to Regulation 52 of DERC. It is further submitted that vide judgment
in WPC 4955/2016, the defendant has power to transfer the pending
dues of disconnected connection to live connection of consumer. So in
view of Regulation 52 & 56 of DERC, the prayer clause A, B and D of
plaint are barred.
Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of
plaintiff/respondent that as the electricity connection of plaintiff has
not been disconnected but only the dues in the name of husband of
plaintiff has been transferred to the electricity connection in the name
of plaintiff, whereas plaintiff was neither guarantor nor the consumer
of the electricity bill, the dues of which has been transferred in the
electricity connection at premises of plaintiff.
It is settled law that while considering an application
under Order VII Rule XI CPC and the prayer for rejection of the
plaint, only averments of plaint are material and can be taken into
consideration and any evidence or averments made in the written
statement cannot be considered.
In
Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties and Ors.
(2020) 6 SCC 557 (Judgment dated 04.10.2019), a reference judgment
by a three-judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has been noted
as follows:
-- 2 of 4 --
“63. ……What is of significance under Order VII
Rule 11 is that from the averments of plaint itself the
suit is barred by any law and it would include
limitation also including bar created by any other law
for the time being in force. For the rejection of plaint,
averments made by the defendant in the written
statement or otherwise cannot be seen, only the
averments of the plaint are material and can be taken
into consideration and no other evidence.”
In
Ramisetty Venkatanna & Anr. Versus Nasyam Jamal
Saheb & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2717 of 2023 (Judgment dated
28.04.2023) Hon’ble Supreme Court has noted as follows:
“7.1 Now so far as the reliance placed upon the
decision of this Court in the case of Nusli Neville
Wadia (supra) is concerned, again there cannot be any
dispute with respect to the proposition of law laid down
by this Court that while deciding the application under
Order VII Rule XI, mainly the averments in the plaint
only are required to be considered and not the
averments in the written statement. ….”
From the above noted facts, it is clear that the plaintiff
has admittedly paid the bill on the basis of consumption vide
electricity meter in her name at First Floor and the issue is only the
addition of electricity charges of other two meters, so plaintiff has
triable issue in her favour. Accordingly, the plaintiff explained cause
of action in her favour. The defense of the defendant as taken in
Written Statement can not be considered at this stage. Whether actual
cause of action lies in favour of the plaintiff or not can be decided
only after adducing evidence and appreciating the same.
In view of the above noted facts and expositions of law,
the above application u/o VII Rule 11 CPC is dismissed.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues
are framed for adjudication:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of
declaration, as prayed for? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of
-- 3 of 4 --
mandatory injunction, as prayed for in prayer clause
(b)? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of
mandatory injunction, as prayed for in prayer clause
(c)? OPP.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of
compensation, as prayed for? OPP.
5. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the court with
clean hands? OPD.
6. Relief?
No other issue arises or is pressed for.
Both the parties are directed to file their respective list
of witnesses in terms of order XVI rule 1 CPC within 15 days from
the date of order. The plaintiff is directed to file affidavits of all the
PWs before the next date of hearing with advance copy to the
defendant(s) at least one week before the next date of hearing.
List for PE on 16.02.2026.
AJAY KUMAR MALIK
JSCC/ASCJ/G.JUDGE (N/E)
14.11.2025
-- 4 of 4 --