JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. A.D. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL, appearing for the respondents. 2. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 19.01.2017 and 02.03.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in Title Suit No. 205/2016. By the order dated 02.03.2017, the plaint of the petitioner was returned on the ground that the Civil Court’s jurisdiction is barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act. 3. Learned Standing counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary issue of maintainability of the present application. 4. It is submitted that as the plaint was returned, the said order is an order, which is passed under Rule 10 (A) Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure and such an order is an appealable order under the provisions of Order XLIII Rule 1 (A) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. In order to place this point, he relies on the case of Maneck Gustedji Burjarji vs. Sarafazali Nawabali Mirza, reported in AIR 1976 SC 2446 . The relevant paragraph is extracted below:- “It is very difficult to appreciate the reasoning behind the order made by the High Court. It is to say the least an extraordinary order which flies in the face of law and judicial procedure. The respondent had clearly a legal remedy available to him by way of an appeal against the decree of the City Civil Court and this remedy was not only adequate but more comprehensive than the one under Article 227 of the Constitution. Even so, for some inexplicable reasons, the respondent chose to prefer a Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution and Vaidya, J. entertained the Special Civil Application and granted relief to the respondent casting to the winds the well-settled principle that the High Court does not ordinarily, in exercise of its discretion, entertain a special civil application under Article 227 of the Constitution where an adequate alternative legal remedy is available to the applicant. It is true that this principle is not rigid and inflexible and there can be extraordinary circumstances where despite the existence of an alternative legal remedy, the High Court may interfere in favour of an applicant, but this was certainly not one of such extraordinary cases. It is true that this principle is not rigid and inflexible and there can be extraordinary circumstances where despite the existence of an alternative legal remedy, the High Court may interfere in favour of an applicant, but this was certainly not one of such extraordinary cases. It is indeed difficult to see how the learned Judge could entertain a Special Civil Application against a decree passed by a subordinate court when the procedural law allows an appeal against it and that appeal lies to the High Court itself. It must be realised that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is an extraordinary jurisdiction which is to be exercised sparingly and in appropriate cases and it is not to be exercised as if it were an appellate jurisdiction or as if it gave unfettered and unrestricted power to the High Court to do whatever it liked.” 6. Learned counsel for the respondents also relies on the case of Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 524 . The relevant paragraph is quoted below:- “The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.” 7. By citing these two cases, it is argued that when an alternative and efficacious remedy is provided for in the Civil Procedure Code in form of an appeal, the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is unwarranted. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the provisions of Section 145 of the Electricity Act to submit that the plaint was returned for filing it before the Court having jurisdiction. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the provisions of Section 145 of the Electricity Act to submit that the plaint was returned for filing it before the Court having jurisdiction. However, in terms of Section 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Special Tribunal, which is referred in the impugned order, as the jurisdictional Court, did not have any power or jurisdiction to grant civil reliefs of declaration or injunction as prayed for in the suit filed by the petitioner. He has submitted that in the said suit, the petitioner had prayed for following reliefs:- (a) a decree for declaration that the disconnection of supply of energy on 23.01.2014 for non-payment of the alleged outstanding dues of Rs. 3,80,82,453/- in illegal and void ab initio; (b) a decree for declaration that the supply of electricity to Topcem India, Sagar Steel and others without the consent of the plaintiff is without jurisdiction, illegal and void; (c) a decree for declaration that the refusal to change the tariff from option II to option I is illegal and void; (d) a decree for compensation of Rs. 78,67,20,711/-; (e) a decree for interest @ 24% per annum from the date of the suit till realization; (f) cost of the suit be decreed; (g) any other relief/reliefs which the plaintiff is entitled to under law and equity may also be decreed. ” 9. To answer the preliminary issue raised by the learned counsel for the respondents as regards non-maintainability of the present revision under Article 227, it would be relevant to quote and to refer to the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, to understand the scheme of adjudication covered by those provisions, which the learned Trial Court relied on the provisions of Section 145 to hold that the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred in the matters relating to Electricity Act, 2003. The following provisions are quoted below:- “126. Assessment – (1) If on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or after inspection of records maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgment the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefited by such use. (2) The order of provisional assessment shall be served upon the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) The person, on whom a notice has been served under sub-section (2) shall be entitled to file objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before the assessing officer, who may, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person, pass a final order of assessment of the electricity charges payable by such person. (4) Any person served with the order of provisional assessment, may, accept such assessment and deposit the assessed amount with the licensee within seven days of service of such provisional assessment order upon him Provided that in case the person deposits the assessed amount he shall not be subjected to any further liability or any action by any authority whatsoever. (5) If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorised use of electricity has taken place, it shall be presumed that such unauthorized use of electricity was continuing for a period of three months immediately preceding the date of inspection in case of domestic and agricultural services and for a period of six months immediately preceding the date of inspection for all other categories of services, unless the onus is rebutted by the person, occupier or possessor of such premises or place. (6) The assessment under this section shall be made at a rate equal to one-and-half times the tariff rates applicable for the relevant category of services specified in sub-section (5). Explanation.- For the purposes of this section:- (a) “assessing officer” means an officer of a State Government or Board or licensee, as the case may be, designated as such by the State Government; (b) “unauthorised use of electricity” means the usage of electricity – (i) by any artificial means; (ii) by a means not authorised by the concerned person or authority or licensee; (iii) through a tampered meter; (iv) for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised. 127. Appeal to appellate authority – (1) Any person aggrieved by a final order made under section 126 may, within thirty days of the said order, prefer an appeal in such form, verified in such manner and be accompanied by such fee as may be specified by the State Commission, to an appellate authority as may be prescribed. 127. Appeal to appellate authority – (1) Any person aggrieved by a final order made under section 126 may, within thirty days of the said order, prefer an appeal in such form, verified in such manner and be accompanied by such fee as may be specified by the State Commission, to an appellate authority as may be prescribed. (2) No appeal against an order of assessment under sub-section (1) shall be entertained unless an amount equal to one third of the assessed amount is deposited in cash or by way of bank draft with the licensee and documentary evidence of such deposit has been enclosed along with the appeal. (3) The appellate authority referred to in sub-section (1) shall dispose of the appeal after hearing the parties and pass appropriate order and send copy of the order to the assessing officer and the appellant. (4) The order of the appellate authority referred to in sub-section (1) passed under sub-section (3) shall be final. (5) No appeal shall lie to the appellate authority referred to in sub-section (1) against the final order made with the consent of the parties. (6) When a person default in making payment of assessed amount, he, in addition to the assessed amount shall be liable to pay, on the expiry of thirty days from the date of order of assessment, an amount of interest at the rate of sixteen per cent per annum compounded every six months. 135. Theft of electricity-(1) Whoever, dishonestly:- (a) taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service wires, or service facilities of a licensee; (b) tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current reversing transformer, loop connection or any other device or method which interferes with accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; (c) damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electricity; (d) uses electricity through a tampered meter; (e) uses electricity for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized……. 136. 136. Theft of electric lines and materials (1) Whoever, dishonestly:- (a) cuts or removes or takes way or transfers any electric line, material or meter from a tower, pole, any other installation or place of installation or any other place, or site where it may be rightfully or lawfully stored, deposited, kept, stocked, situated or located including during transportation, without the consent of the licensee or the owner, as the case may be, whether or not the act is done for profit or gain; (b) stores, possesses or otherwise keeps in his premises, custody or control, any electric line, material or meter without the consent of the owner, whether or not the act is committed for profit or gain; (c) loads, carries, or moves from one place to another any electric line, material or meter without the consent of its owner, whether or not the act is done for profit or gain; 137. Punishment for receiving stolen property-Whoever, dishonestly receives any stolen electric lines or materials knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. 138. Interference with meters or works of licensee.-(1) Whoever:- (a) unauthorisedly connects any meter, indicator or apparatus with any electric line through which electricity is supplied by a licensee or disconnects the same from any such electric line; (b) unauthorisedly reconnects any meter, indicator or apparatus with any electric line or other works being the property of a licensee when the said electric line or other works has or have been cut or disconnected; (c) lays or causes to be laid, or connects up any works for the purpose of communicating with any other works belonging to a licensee; (d) maliciously injures any meter, indicator, or apparatus belonging to a licensee or willfully or fraudulently alters the index of any such meter, indicator or apparatus or prevents any such meter, indicator or apparatus from duly registering, 139. Negligently wasting electricity or injuring works.- Whoever, negligently causes electricity to be wasted or diverted or negligently breaks, injures, throws down or damages any material connected with the supply of electricity, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees. 140. Negligently wasting electricity or injuring works.- Whoever, negligently causes electricity to be wasted or diverted or negligently breaks, injures, throws down or damages any material connected with the supply of electricity, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees. 140. Penalty for maliciously wasting electricity or injuring works.-Whoever, maliciously causes electricity to be wasted or diverted, or , with intent to cut off the supply of electricity, cuts or injures, or attempts to cut or injure, any electric supply line or works, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees................... 145. No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an assessing officer referred to in section 126 or an appellate authority referred to in section 127 or the adjudicating officer appointed under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act................... 150. (1) Whoever abets an offence punishable under this Act, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Penal Code, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence................... 154. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every offence punishable under sections 135 to 139 shall be triable only by the Special Court within whose jurisdiction such offence has been committed. 10. On a cursory reading of Section 145, it is provided therein that the Civil Court would not have jurisdiction in respect of the matters in which an Assessing Officer referred to in Section 126 or an appellate authority referred to in Section 127 or the adjudicating officer appointed under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine the issue before it. Therefore, it is apparent that only on matters arising out of Sections 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 that the Civil Court would not have such jurisdiction to entertain the suit questioning the assessment done by the Assessing Officer under Sections 126 or 127 of the Electricity Act and no injunction can be granted by a Civil Court. Section 126 as extracted above relates to the provisions of assessment. Section 126 as extracted above relates to the provisions of assessment. As per the provisions of the said Act, an ‘assessment’ is relatable to the unauthorized use of electricity and after the investigation, an assessment is made to assess the charges payable in respect of unauthorized use of electricity, and under Section 127, if any person is aggrieved by the final order passed under Section 127, the said person would have a right to appeal. Therefore, if any person has any other bona-fide civil dispute with the electricity distribution company, that situation would not be covered by Section 127 of the Electricity Act. 11. Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides for the constitution of separate Special Courts, and the procedure and power of such Special Court is prescribed under Section 154 of the said Act. As quoted above, the Special Court constituted under Section 153 of the Electricity Act is entitled to exercise powers under Section 135 to 140 and Section 150 and only offences covered by the said provisions of law are triable by the special Court within those jurisdictions. An offence committed under Section 135 relates to theft of electricity. Section 136 relates to theft of electric line and materials. Section 137 relates to punishment for receiving stolen property. Section 138 relates to interference with meters or works of licensee. Section 139 relates to negligently breaking or damaging of works. Section 140 relates to penalty for intentionally injuring works and Section 150 relates to abetment of the offences under Sections 135 to 138. As per the said Act, the Special Court constituted under Section 153 has the powers under Section 154 (3) to try the offence within the meaning of Section 260 or 262 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. Thus, this Court does not find any provisions in Section 154, which confers any power or jurisdiction to such Special Court to try and adjudicate of disputes of civil nature or to pass a declaratory decree or issue any injunction. 13. If the Civil Court returns a plaint, it is also incumbent on the part of such Court to follow the procedure prescribed in Order VII Rule 10-A of the Civil Procedure Code and thereby also prescribe and provide for a forum to the party where he would present such a plaint. 13. If the Civil Court returns a plaint, it is also incumbent on the part of such Court to follow the procedure prescribed in Order VII Rule 10-A of the Civil Procedure Code and thereby also prescribe and provide for a forum to the party where he would present such a plaint. In the present case, this Court finds that the Special Court constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003 does not have the power to adjudicate the dispute raised in the present suit filed by the petitioner. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court has committed a jurisdictional error and no purpose would be served to relegate the parties to an appeal, which would not only time consuming, but would unnecessary protract a round of avoidable litigation and defeat the purpose of a person to file a suit to seek an urgent remedy before the competent Civil Court having jurisdiction. This Court is of the view that the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to entertain a civil suit is as per the provisions of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Civil Court having competence should have jurisdiction to try a civil suit unless such suit is barred by law. In the present case in hand the bar to a civil suit under the Electricity Act, 2003, will occur only if there is a challenge to the assessment procedure as envisaged under Section 126 of the said Act. Therefore, the ouster of jurisdiction of a Civil Court is not to be readily presumed or inferred because under the provisions of Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, a Civil Court is entitled to adjudicate the civil suit. 14. This Court is of the view that despite the provisions of appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 (A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same does not preclude the superintending jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice to the parties specially, the petitioner, as in the present case as the petitioner has lost a forum to file a civil suit to adjudicate his grievances. 15. 15. In the present case in hand, even if the parties given their respective consent, their consent would not be sufficient to confer jurisdiction to the Special Court constituted under Electricity Act, 2003, to try a civil suit presented by the petitioner. It would be greater injustice to the petitioner to relegate him to file an appeal, get the impugned order reversed to give him an opportunity to file his civil suit before the competent Court, which would amount to deny the petitioner of any urgent remedy. In both the cases cited by the learned counsel for the respondent, the matter in issue was of return of plaint filed before an otherwise competent Court by relegating the plaintiff to file his claim before an incompetent Court having no jurisdiction, as has done in the present case in hand. Hence, the ratio of the said two judgments do not apply to the singular facts of this case, because no person can be compelled to agitate his grievance before the Court having no jurisdiction or powers to grant any reliefs as prayed in the present suit. Hence, while, rejecting the preliminary issue raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court is inclined to allow this revision and for the reasons as stated above, this Court thus hereby set aside the orders dated 19.01.2017 as well as 02.03.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in Title Suit No. 205/2016 and the said suit is restored to the file of the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, who would now proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 16. The revision stands allowed. 17. The parties are left to bear their own cost.