Civil court jurisdiction remains intact where electricity law does not expressly or impliedly bar a suit over unauthorised transmission lines.

Civil court jurisdiction is not excluded unless a statute expressly or by necessary implication bars it and provides an adequate alternative remedy. In a dispute over high-tension transmission lines laid over land without consent and without a sanctioned scheme, the courts found that the line was installed after construction had begun and endangered the property. On those facts, the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 did not oust ordinary civil jurisdiction, and the suit for compensation and removal of the line remained maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the civil suit for compensation and removal of the electric line was barred by the Electricity Act and thus excluded by Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The dispute concerned laying of high-tension transmission lines over the respondent's land without consent and without an approved scheme. The findings of the courts below were concurrent that the line was laid after construction had commenced, without the respondent's consent, that the line endangered the respondent's property, and that there was no sanctioned scheme. In such circumstances, the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 did not afford the appellant protection so as to oust the ordinary civil court's jurisdiction. The principle governing exclusion of civil jurisdiction is that such exclusion is not readily inferred and will arise only where the statute expressly or by necessary implication takes away the civil court's power and provides an adequate alternative remedy.

Conclusion: The suit was maintainable in the civil court, and the challenge based on bar of jurisdiction failed.

---