Gujarat High Court
Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited ... vs Govindbhai Kanabhai Kodiyatar on 7 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/349/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 349 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Sd/-
=====================================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
No
=====================================================
PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH DY
ENGINEER
Versus
GOVINDBHAI KANABHAI KODIYATAR & ORS.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR VIRAL J DAVE(5751) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PRATHAM P JOSHI(12796) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR. MAYUR S BHATTI(17455) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 07/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") challenges the judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court in RCA No. 52 of 2018 (renumbered as RCA No.95 of 2018), which in turn confirms the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Court, Vanthali in RCS No. 27 of 2016, on various grounds stated in that appeal on the following substantial question of law:-
Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:17:44 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/349/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined "(A) Whether both the Hon'ble Court below has committed error in relying upon the judgment passed in case of Raipur(Rakhial) Commercial Co-Op Housing Society Limited V/s Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited reported in 2005(3)GLR- 2689?
(B) Whether the appellant is entitle to recover electricity dues of previous owner/occupier from the respondent in view of Condition no.2(j) of the Conditions and Miscellaneous Charges For Supply of Electrical Energy?
(C) Whether the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below runs contrary to law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in case of Gujarat Electricity Board v/s Jaisal Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. passed in L.P.A No.691/2003 with other allied group of Letters Patent Appeals? (D) Whether the appellant is entitle to recover electricity dues of previous owner/occupier from the respondent in view Section 4.4.11 of Electricity Supply Code, 2005?
(E) Whether the appellant is entitled to recover electricity dues of previous owner/occupier from the respondent in view Section 4.30 of Electricity Supply Code, 2005?
(F) Whether Suit was barred by law of Limitation?"
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to their original status i.e. plaintiff and defendant.
3. The plaintiff purchased open plot of City Survey No. 2812 by way of registered sale deed No. 1426 on 15.07.2008 from the heirs of erstwhile owner - Deceased Baksuji Ismailji Vora, through his Power of Attorney by paying full sale consideration, constructed the residential house in 2009 and obtained the electricity connection from the Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'PGVCL', for short) and regularly paid the electricity bill. Meanwhile, he received notices on 14.09.2015 and 28.11.2016 from the PGVCL directing to pay the arrears of the electricity consumed by the erstwhile tenant of the disputed premises having different electricity connection, else to face the disconnection.
Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:17:44 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/349/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined
4. Prior to the issuance of the notice, the PGVCL filed the Special Civil Suit No. 46 of 1997 before the Civil Court, Junagadh against Mr. Sultanali Jivaji to recover the very said amount, for which the notices were issued to the plaintiff. The suit was decreed against Sultanali Jivaji. However, the PGVCL found difficulty to execute the decree. Therefore, the PGVCL issued the notice dated 14.09.2015 and 28.11.2016 to the Plaintiff - Kanabhai Ghelabhai Kodiyatar. The plaintiff has filed the Civil Suit challenging the legality and validity of the said notices. The defence of the PGVCL was to the effect that in view of amended clause 4.1.11 in Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission, the PGVCL can recover the amount of the arrears of electricity bill or supplementary bill from the subsequent purchaser. Therefore, the PGVCL has authority to issue notice and to disconnect the electricity connection of the plaintiff.
5. The learned trial Court framed the issues and permitted both the parties to lead the evidence and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff by quashing and setting aside the two notices issued by the PGVCL and issued the permanent injunction, restraining the PGVCL from disconnecting the electricity connection. Therefore, being aggrieved, PGVCL unsuccessfully preferred Regular Civil Appeal before the learned first appellate Court by filing RCA No. 52 of 2018, which is renumbered as RCA No. 95 of 2018. Further, being aggrieved, PGVCL is before this Court by way of this Second Appeal.
6. Mainly relying upon the clause 4.1.11, the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission, learned advocate Mr. Viral J. Dave appearing for the appellant would submit that the PGVCL Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:17:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/349/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined was legally authorized to recover the amount of the supplementary bill of the previous consumer/owner. Therefore, he submits that this legal aspect has not been noticed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court, and therefore, this is clear error, much less error of understanding the law on the part of the Courts below. Hence, the appeal deserves consideration.
7. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Pratham P. Joshi appearing for the respondents would submit that the concurrent finding recorded by the learned trial Court has addressed all the factual aspects emerging from the pleading as well as evidence. He further submitted that the clause 4.1.11 would not apply to the facts of the case on the ground that PGVCL has previously filed a Civil Suit against the person, who is reported in paying the amount of the supplementary bill. The suit has been decreed. However, the PGVCL found difficulty in executing the said judgment and decree would not permit the PGVCL to file another suit for the same and said recovery, as which is barred by the principle of Res-Judicata.
7.1 Upon this submission, learned advocate Mr. Pratham P. Joshi submitted not to admit this Second Appeal.
8. I have heard learned advocates for both the sides. For the admission also, applied mind to the concurrent finding arrived at by the Courts below.
8.1 Recently in the case of Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sau. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar & Ors., reported in 2023 Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:17:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/349/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined LiveLaw (SC) 821, the Honourable Supreme Court has said that, 'in save and in exceptional circumstances, the Court should interfere with the finding of facts'.
8.2 In Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 179, a Three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held as under in regard to what constitutes a substantial question of law:-
"a) Not previously settled by law of land or a binding precedent.
b) Material bearing on the decision of case; and
c) New point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter."
8.3 This principle was followed in case of Government of Kerala v. Joseph, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 961. I may also refer to the case of Gurdev Kaur & Ors. v. Kaki & Ors., reported in (2007) 1 SCC 546 of the Supreme Court, wherein it is observed that:-
"The legislative intention was very clear that legislature never wanted second appeal to become 'third trial on facts' or 'one more dice in the gamble'."
8.4 Consideration of amendment in clause 4.1.11 would not arise in the present case as PGVCL has already filed the suit against the person, who was the tenant of the property previously owned by some third party and which is subsequently purchased by the plaintiff. This suit was also decreed but the Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:17:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/349/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined PGVCL find difficulty in executing the decree, but this could not be the reason to file a second suit against the subsequent purchaser on same factual foundation, more particularly when the electricity connection is different and the electricity connection in favor of the plaintiff was released without any hindrance by the PGVCL and further, when plaintiff is regularly paying the bills generated by the PGVCL, and therefore, he cannot be made responsible to pay the amount, which is alleged against the defaulter, who was in possession of the property previously. In fact, what appears that the suit notices were just intending to execute the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 46 of 1997, whereby the plaintiff was not the party and no decree was passed against him. Therefore, the notices since their very inception, were void, and rightly had been cancelled by the learned trial Court, referring to the judgment in the case of Raipur (Rakhial) Commercial Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. v. Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd., reported in 2005 (3) GLR 2689, more particularly referring para 11 to 14 thereof.
9. In view of the above and the concurrent finding of the learned Courts below, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the facts, there is no case made out by the present petitioner to entertain the Second Appeal. Accordingly. It stands rejected at the admission stage.
Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back.
Sd/-
(J. C. DOSHI, J.) Raj Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:17:44 IST 2025