2006 PLP 1314 (MLD)

SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.

The petitioner is owner of agricultural land in village Hacher, Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura. He made an application to get installed a tube-well, which was allowed by the respondents. The petitioner has been regularly paying the bills for this tube-well. The petitioner later made another application for installation of second tube-well. He was issued a demand notice and according to the respondents meter was also sanctioned. In 1992 the petitioner started receiving bills for the second tube-well, he made an application to respondent No.2 submitting that the second tube-well was never sanctioned or installed as he exchanged the land with Muhammad Aslam, thus, the bill issued to him for Rs.23,648.75 is unwarranted. He filed suit for declaration etc., seeking annulment of the bill of Rs.23,648.75. Issues were framed, parties produced evidence and thereafter, the trial Court dismissed the suit on 11-4-2001. Aggrieved thereof the petitioner filed an appeal which too was dismissed on 4-10-2001. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking setting aside of both the judgments.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he made an application for the installation of the second tube-well but the land in question was exchanged. resultantly the tube-well was never installed, therefore, the bill in dispute is illegal, further the bill is for the years 1986 to 1993 (approximately seven years) and WAPDA disconnects the meter in case of default of more than one rnbnth. He also submits that the report of the local commissioner Exh.P.2 was not properly appreciated by both the Courts below, there has been complete misreading of evidence as under the provisions of Order XXVI, rule 10, C.P.C. the report of the local commission is binding evidence which was wrongly ignored by the Courts below.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that there is concurrent finding against the petitioner, evidence has been properly appraised, there is no misreading or non-reading, the petitioner made an application for installation of tube-well which was exhibited as Exh.D.1. He was issued demand notice which is Exh.D.6 and test report is Exh.D.7 (affirms that premises are functional), he was allocated Meter No.330-421, therefore, both the Courts below have apprised the evidence properly and given the correct findings.

4. It stands established from record that the application for installation of second tube-well was made by the petitioner, Exh.D.6 establishes that demand notice was issued, it is also established from record that the tube-well started functioning (Exh.D.7 test report). Later the land was exchanged with Muhammad Aslam, therefore, the petitioner now has no nexus with this land. The report of the local commissioner relates to the position of land on 3-7-1991 and not to the position in 1986, when the tube-well became functional. The character of the land would have changed in this period especially as the ownership stood transferred. This report was also objected to by the respondents and not accepted as correct. The inferences of the local commissioner's report are not binding on the Court it has to apply its own independent mind and consider the evidence brought on record. There is preponderance of convincing documentary evidence produced by the respondents especially Exh.D.1 (the initial application), Exh.D.2 (the undertaking signed by the petitioner), Exh.D.6 (demand notice) and Exh.D.7 the installation test report. Contrarily no convincing or confidence-inspiring documentary evidence was produced by the petitioner to negate these documents, in fact there are material discrepancies in the evidence produced. Both the Courts below have appraised the evidence correctly. There is concurrent finding of facts against the petitioner, no non-reading, --misreading or material irregularities could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment, resultantly this petition fails and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. M.H./E-4/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.