2008 PLP 295 (CLC)

MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.

The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed the suit for declaration with permanent injunction, inter alia, pleading that although he is paying the electricity bills regularly, yet the petitioners are adamant to disconnect the electricity connection installed in his abode and to remove the electric installations without any legal justification. The suit was contested by the petitioners through the written statement maintaining that the consumer violated the terms of the agreement, he is consuming the electricity at different premises from the one for which electricity connection was given and the electricity is being consumed 800 meters away from the place where meter was installed. The learned trial Court framed the necessary issues, recorded evidence of the parties and ultimately decreed the suit, vide judgment and decree, dated 16-6-2006. Petitioners' appeal against the said decree was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, vide impugned judgment and decree, dated 15-3-2007, hence, the present revision petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while referring to clause 6 of abridged condition of supply, has submitted that as the electricity is illegally being used at different premises, therefore, the department is justified in disconnecting the electricity supply to the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to letter, dated 29-1-1999 and submits that the respondents are consuming the electricity from the meter, which was legally installed, the respondents are regularly paying the monthly consumption bills, there is no loss of revenue to the department and use of electricity is not dangerous either to human or animal life.

3. I have heard the learned counsel and examined the available record. Learned counsel for the petitioners, when confronted with letter, dated 29-1-1999, has admitted that the said letter still holds the field and was not superseded by any subsequent letter/notification or even departmental instructions. The said letter in clear terms states that in case of domestic consumers if there are extensions from legal meters, there is no loss to the department, the extensions do not pose any danger to human and animal life then these should not be disconnected. The petitioners failed to produce on record any documentary or oral evidence to prove that use of electricity at the Dera of the respondents is dangerous to human or animal life; the consumption of electricity is causing loss of revenue to the department or the respondents are not paying the electricity bills. The learned Additional District Judge has rightly held that the meter is fixed on the pole installed by the respondents, which is outside the premises, and the electricity is being used at the Dera of the respondent, which is also their residence. As regards clause 6 (ibid), relied upon the learned counsel for the petitioners, suffice it to say that the same is inapplicable in the present set of circumstances, thus, does not advance the case of the petitioners.

4. In the above perspective, I have examined both the judgments and find that both the courts, after adverting to every aspect of the case and in view of the evidence on record, have decided the matter and the petitioners have not been able to make out any case for interference in both the judgments, which are concurrent in nature. Even no misreading and. non-reading of the evidence on record has been pointed out by the learned counsel. Both the judgments are not only in accordance with the record of the case but the same are also in consonance with the law on the subject and I am not inclined to exercise revisional jurisdiction in the matter. Both the judgments are maintained.

5. It is settled law that concurrent findings of facts, based on evidence, are not liable to be interfered in the exercise of jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. reliance is placed on Abdul Rahim and another v. Mst. Janatay Bibi and others 2000 SCMR 346, Anwar Zaman and 5 others v. Bahadur Sher and others 2000 SCMR 431, Aziz Ullah Khan arid others v. Gul Muhammad Khan 2000 SCMR 1647, Altaf Hussain v. Abdul Hameed and Abdul Majeed through L.Rs. and another 2000 SCMR 314, Haji Noor Muhammad v. Abdul Ghani and 2 others 2000 SCMR 329, Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah PLD 1994 SC 291 and Muhammad Rashid Ahmad v. Muhammad Siddique PLD 2002 SC 293.

6. In view of the above, the present revision petition is devoid of merits, hence the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./W-17/L Revision dismissed.