2007 PLP 1541 (YLR)

SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.

This Civil Revision is directed against the appellate judgment and decree dated 7-2-2006, whereby the appeal filed by petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 7-5-2005 was dismissed. Facts in brief giving rise to this petition are that respondent Rana Rice Mills who was consumer of the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction to call in question two demand notices issued to the petitioner for payment of Rs.25,030 dated 28-6-2002 and 8-8-2002 for 1,56,401 respectively. Suit was resisted. Learned trial Court recorded the evidence of the parties on the issues framed. Vide judgment dated 7-5-2002 decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. Being aggrieved petitioner filed an appeal which failed to find favour and dismissed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree impugned. Counsel for the parties heard. Record perused. It appears from the record that the respondent who was a seasonal consumer of the petitioner was served with a bill for Rs.80,533 which was challenged by respondent in a civil suit. Said matter was compromised and it was agreed between the parties that said amount shall be paid in instalments by the respondent and thus the suit was disposed of in terms of compromise. Apparently, some instalments were paid and again dispute arose as to the payment of instalments, and consequently petitioner removed the transformer. Respondent again approached the trial Court complaining violation of terms of compromise by the petitioner. Again the master was settled and in addition to the instalments, petitioner was required to pay Rs.43,798 for restoration of plaintiff's connection. Subsequently, petitioner again served respondent with two disputed bills demanding further payments. There is no dispute between the parties as to the payments of instalments or the subsequent amount of Rs.43,798 which appears to have been paid by respondent. Petitioner has now claimed further amount relying upon some internal directive to justify the charge in question. It has been noticed that during previous round of litigation, said charge was never identified or raised and even did not reflect in the compromise judgment and decree. Said charge was not raised at the time of the meter being installed when the respondent again invoked the jurisdiction of the trial Court for the alleged violation of the terms of compromise. The entire claim in this behalf for restoration as raised has been paid. Two Courts below have rightly concluded that the petitioner has missed the bus and the instant claim should have been raised in the earlier round of litigation. Matter pertaining to the claim of the petitioner against respondent in the facts and circumstances of the case have been concluded firstly through the judgments and decrees of the Courts below and then through subsequent order, petitioner is now estopped from raising any further claim. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to identify any misreading and non-reading of evidence available on record. Concurrent finding of the two Courts below are based on proper application of judicial mind and proper evaluation of evidence. If at all any amount was allegedly due from the respondent and not raised at the appropriate time, petitioner should proceed against its own employees for dereliction of duty rather than hounding the respondent at this stage. Petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of its incompetence. For the foregoing facts and reasons I am not persuaded to interfere in the matter and this petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed accordingly. H.B.T./S-29/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.