2006 PLP 929 (SCMR)
WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman and another — Petitioners Versus BILAL AHMED and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 929 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman and another — Petitioners Versus BILAL AHMED and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 929 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 929 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 929 (SCMR) (WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman and another — Petitioners Versus BILAL AHMED and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with M.Z. Khalil, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th December, 2004.
- 2. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners impugns the said concurrent findings on the ground that the claim was made by the plaintiffs/respondents under three heads but separate issues were not framed for each of the said heads; that the compensation claimed by the plaintiffs/respondents was not evaluated by either of the two learned Courts under each head; that both the learned Courts failed to appreciate that whenever there was sparking in the electricity cables, the same always travelled back to the transformer and never forwards towards the property and that the two learned Courts were in error in not having appreciated the evidence available on record in its correct prospective and in the circumstances the impugned judgments were liable to be set aside.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 22-2-2001 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in R.F.A. No.71 of 1990).
O. XIV, Rr.1 & 2
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185
Such objection if not raised at proper stage, could not be raised for the first time before Supreme Court
Principles illustrated.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.
The shop of the respondents located in Amin Bazaar, Sargodha got burnt on 31-1-1985 allegedly on account of electric sparking in the electricity cables which the functionaries of the petitioner-WAPDA had placed on the roof of the said shop. The respondent brought a suit in the Court of a learned Civil Judge at Sargodha on 3-11-1986 seeking damages and compensation for the negligent act of the petitioners which suit was decreed through a judgment dated 24-1-1990 of the learned trial Judge directing the petitioners herein to pay a sum of Rs.5,50,000 to the respondents. The petitioners then approached the Lahore High Court through R.F.A. No.71 of 1990 which was dismissed through a judgment, dated 22-2-2001 of a learned Division Bench of the Honourable High Court. Hence this petition.
2. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners impugns the said concurrent findings on the ground that the claim was made by the plaintiffs/respondents under three heads but separate issues were not framed for each of the said heads; that the compensation claimed by the plaintiffs/respondents was not evaluated by either of the two learned Courts under each head; that both the learned Courts failed to appreciate that whenever there was sparking in the electricity cables, the same always travelled back to the transformer and never forwards towards the property and that the two learned Courts were in error in not having appreciated the evidence available on record in its correct prospective and in the circumstances the impugned judgments were liable to be set aside.
3. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge was affirmed and consequently maintained by the Honourable High Court. The first two submissions noticed above were not asserted by the petitioners at the proper stage because no issue was framed on the said questions and in the circumstances we do not find it possible to permit the petitioners to raise these questions for the first time at .this belated stage. No misreading or non-reading of the kind exists which could justify intervention with the concurrent findings of the two learned Courts including the Honourable High Court.
4. Having thus, examined the matter from all angles, we find that no exception could be taken to the impugned judgment. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused. S.A.K./W-13/SC???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.