2009 PLP 688 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.--WAPDA through Chief Executive PESCO Peshawar and others have filed this revision petition against Muhammad Raza Khan under section 115, C.P.C. impugning the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge-II, Bannu dated 23-2-2005 and that of the learned District Judge, Bannu dated 20-11-2006 vide which the respondent was granted a decree for declaration and permanent injunction regarding recovery of an amount of Rs.57,400.

2. Briefly narrated the facts of the case are that Muhammad Raza Khan respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the electricity bill for March, 2002 for meter connection A/C No.6611-11456000U pertaining to a hotel situated inside Lakki Gate, Bannu is illegal, fictitious, against the rules and regulations and is without notice, based on collusion and mala fide and is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. He had also prayed for a decree for issuance of permanent mandatory and prohibitory injunction to restrain the petitioners-defendants from recovery of Rs.57,400 and consequent reconnection of electric supply to the premises of the respondent. It was alleged in the plaint that plaintiff is the owner of a hotel known as `Three Star Hotel' and the meter to the premises of the petitioner has been installed outside the premises on the electric poll. It was also averred that the Meter Reader of the petitioners used to come regularly and after reading of the meter and on receipt of the bail, the respondent has paid the same regularly. That in December, 2001 a bill amounting to Rs.48,582 was received by the respondent in which some penalty had been shown on account of tampering with the seal of the meter. Then subsequently another bill dated 27-4-2002 was sent in which the amount had been shown to be Rs.57,400 and thus, this last bill was termed to be illegal, collusive and against the rules and regulations and it was prayed that the same be declared as such.

3. The defendants were summoned who submitted their detailed written statement in which the allegations contained in the plaint were hotly contested. The learned trial Court framed as many as five issues including the relief. The parties then produced their respective evidence as they wished to adduce and the learned trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the data available on the record, vide judgment and decree in suit No.112/1 decided on 23-2-2005, granted a decree a favour of the plaintiff respondent. The petitioners, being aggrieved from the judgment and decree, filed an appeal which was registered as. Civil Appeal No.14/2006 and the learned appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and scanning the evidence on record, dismissed the same on 20-11-2006 and hence, instant civil revision.

4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the meter of the respondent was found defective and according to Laboratory test report dated 10-11-2001 the same was found to be tampered with and thus, the penalty has rightly been imposed on the respondent and the learned two Courts below have fallen into an error in granting decree in favour of the respondent.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the only witness D.W.1 Jehangir Abbasi who was produced before the Court clearly admitted that neither the meter was checked in his presence nor he knows about the tampering thus, the learned trial Court has rightly passed a decree in favour of the respondent which was duly maintained by the learned appellate Court.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.

7. Admittedly the alleged checking of the meter was carried out at the back of the respondent. He was neither given a notice nor he was associated with the alleged checking of the meter. Under the law, the respondent was entitled to have been associated with the checking of the meter as nobody should be a Judge of his own cause under section 20 of the Electricity Act. The owner of the premises is entitled to a notice before checking the same which is lacking in the instant case and any action taken by the WAPDA functionaries, in the absence of consumer and in violation of section 20 of the Electricity Act, will be illegal and without jurisdiction according to the dictum handed down in the case of Mian Muhammad Munir v. WAPDA and others (1983 CLC 211 Lahore) and WAPDA through is Chairman WAPDA House Lahore and others. v. Mian Shaukat Hayat 2003 CLC 1574.

8. The learned two Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact in favour of the respondent which are based on sound appreciation of evidence and data available on the file. The same cannot be set at naught unless it is proved that the same are either perverse or erroneous in view of dicta handed down in the cases of Abdur Rahim and another v. Mst. Jantay Bibi and others (2000 SCMR 346), Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah (PLD 1994 SC 291) and Muhammad Rasheed Ahmad v. Muhammad Siddique (PLD 2002 SC 293).

9. The judgments and decrees of the two Courts below are strictly in accordance with law and in accordance with the established principles of appreciation of evidence. No misreading or non-reading of evidence has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

10. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, this Civil Revision fails which is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./33/P Revision dismissed.