2013 PLP 1709 (MLD)

SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.

Through the instant revision petition, the petitioners have challenged the concurrent judgments and decrees dated 24-11-2011 passed by the learned District Judge Tank and judgment and decree dated 14-6-2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge-I Tank respectively, whereby the suit of the respondent Qutab Khan was decreed against the petitioners.

2. Facts of the case as narrated in the petition in brief are that the respondent was the consumer of the petitioners by using electricity vide Account No.05664103897004-U which was allegedly removed from his premises by the petitioners and, therefore, a report in this behalf was also lodged in the police station concerned. Meanwhile, electricity supply of the premises of the petitioner was permanently disconnected, but still the petitioners sent bill amounting to Rs.3,20,279 to him for the period from November 2007 to May 2010. Thus, the respondent challenged the aforesaid amount of bill by filing a civil suit which was decreed by the learned trial Judge and against which the appeal of the petitioners also failed vide judgements and decrees mentioned above. Hence this revision petition.

3. I have carefully gone through the record of the case and anxiously considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

4. At the very outset, it came to the notice of this court that the petitioners have failed to affix the requisite court fee on this revision petition in view of the Notification No. TOSD/CVT/KC/2011-12/20871-908 dated 4-7-2011 issued by the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Board of Revenue, Revenue and Estate Department Peshawar and thus, on this score alone, this revision petition is liable to dismissal.

5. On merits too, I find no substance in the instant revision petition, because the respondent has successfully proved his case through cogent and tangible evidence brought on record and the petitioners had failed to rebut it through any conclusive evidence. Therefore, both the learned lower courts have correctly appraised the evidence available on record and the impugned judgments and decrees are well founded and findings of both the learned two courts below on all issues are based on proper appreciation of evidence and correct. Thus it needs no interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115 C.P.C.

6. Moreover, the concurrent findings of the two courts below cannot be set at naught by the revisional court unless it is established through the available evidence that the same are either perverse, erroneous, fanciful or based on mis-reading and non-reading of material evidence in view of the dicta handed down by the honourable apex court in the case-law reported as 2002 SCMR 1114 and 2007 SCMR

368. No such infirmity or illegality was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

7. For the reasons stated above, this revision petition being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed in limine along with its CM. AG/205/P Petition dismissed.