2007 PLP 424 (CLC)

IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.

Facts relevant for disposal of the present civil revision in brief are, that Said Aleem Jan, plaintiff, instituted suit on 17-1-2004 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge/Aala Illaqa Qazi, Malakand at Batkhela, against PESCO, through Chairman WAPDA, Lahore and others, defendants, for a declaration to the effect that defendants had no justification to call upon the plaintiff to pay amount in excess of the electricity consumed or disconnect the electricity supply from the premises of the plaintiff and that defendants were bound to send revised and correct electricity bill to the plaintiff for the month of December, 2003, after deducting the excess amount. The plaintiff also prayed for recovery of Rs.20,000 as damages.

2. The suit was contested on all grounds, legal as well as factual and the allegations of the plaintiff were denied. The trial Court after framing as many as seven issues, arising out of controversial pleadings of the parties, called upon them to produce evidence in support of their respective cases, whereafter it decreed the suit of the plaintiff, vide judgment and decree, dated 26-11-2004. An appeal was preferred thereagainst in the Court of learned District Judge/Zilla Qazi, Malakand at Batkhela, which was accepted by judgment, dated 14-9-2005. The judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and suit was dismissed.

3. Mr. Asadullah Jan, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the learned District Judge while reversing the judgment of trial Court, has ignored the evidence on the file and thus, returned findings, which run counter to the record. He also maintained that impugned judgment being tainted with the defect of the non-reading of the evidence cannot be allowed to remain intact. He further contended that the impugned judgment does not substantially comply with the requirements of Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C. and thus, the same is not in accordance with law.

4. Opposing the prayer for acceptance of the civil revision and rebutting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been argued by Mr. Naveed Akhtar, Advocate, for the respondents that Appellate Court has thoroughly scanned the evidence produced by the parties and had drawn correct conclusion from the record, which are not open to legitimate exception.

5. Having considered the matter from all angles, in the light of the material on the file, I find that the judgment rendered by learned trial Court is not sustainable in law. To my mind, the said judgment, as compared to the learned Appellate Court's judgment, suffers from grave legal errors, which have been rectified by the learned Appellate Court, by reversing the findings of the learned trial Court and substituting its own findings, which are supported by reasons. I have not been persuaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner to restore the judgment of the trial Court, which has rightly been set aside by the learned Appellate Court. The impugned judgment is neither contrary to the evidence on record nor in violation of the principle of' administration of justice. It has come in evidence that petitioner supplies electricity to his "Hujra" as well as the adjoining mosque and also irrigates his fields through water pump. It has also come in evidence that on a number of occasions, petitioner was caught red-handed stealing the electricity through hooks and direct connection from the main pole. When attention of learned counsel for the petitioner was drawn to this aspect of the matter, he had no plausible reply to make.

6. So far as the other objection raised on behalf of the petitioner, regarding non-compliance of the provision of Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C. is concerned, I find that learned Appellate Court was alive to the situation and the issue involved has been dealt with and decided in a careful manner. The Appellate Court had given its findings on all the points of controversy and no prejudice seems to have been caused to the petitioner. So far as the question of giving issue-wise findings by the Appellate Court is concerned the same is not the requirement of law as under Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C. The Appellate Court is to state the points for determination give its decision thereon and reasons for the said decision be also mentioned. Umer Din v. Ghazanfar and 2 others 1991 SCMR 1868 and Mst. Husan Bano v. Fair Muhammad and another 2000 CLC 709.

7. Since learned counsel for the petitioner has remained unable to advert to any such infirmity in the impugned judgment, which would justify interference therein while exercising revisional jurisdiction, I find no merit in this revision petition, which is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. H.B.T./34/P Revision dismissed.