2025 PLP 1930 (CLC)

INAM ULLAH KHAN, J.

Through the instant petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code), the petitioners have called in question the Judgment and Decree dated 06.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, D.I.Khan, whereby the appeal of petitioners, filed against Judgment and Decree dated 27.09.2018 of the learned Civil Judge-VII D.I.Khan, was dismissed.

2. Precise facts of this petition are that the respondent No.1 instituted a suit seeking therein declaration to the effect that she is consumer of the petitioners and her electricity meter has wrongly been assessed for the purpose of monthly bills of September 2016 to the tune of Rs.3,73,511/-. She further contended that new meter was installed in September-2014 but it was defective with wrong units, date and time which resulted in mistaken reading on account of peak hour and off-peak hours.

3. After filing of suit, the petitioners were summoned who filed their written statement. The learned trial court after framing issues, recording evidence of parties and hearing their arguments, decreed the suit vide Judgment and Decree dated 27.09.2018, which was upheld in appeal filed by petitioners vide Judgment and Decree dated 06.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, D.I.Khan. Now the petitioners have approached this court by filing the instant revision petition against concurrent findings of the two learned courts below.

4. Arguments heard and record perused.

5. At the very incept of arguments, the learned counsel for respondent raised preliminary objection that the civil revision is not maintainable being incompetently filed and not properly verified. In this context, it is an admitted fact that the Peshawar Electricity Supply Company (PESCO) is a Public Limited Company incorporated, under section 32(2) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, therefore, it is a body Corporate as defined in clause 9(a) of subsection (1) of Section 2 of the Companies Act, 2017 which provides that a body corporate includes a company incorporated under this Act or company law (i.e. Companies Act, 1913, Companies Ordinance 1984 or Ordinance, 2016). The Memo of Civil Revision reveals that it has been filed by (1) PESCO through Chief Executive, (2) Chief Engineer PESCO (3) Circle Manger PESCO, (4) Deputy Manager PESCO Rural Division, (5) Assistant Manager Mandhra Sub-Divion PESCO, (6) Assistant Manager Revenue, (7) Line Superintendent and (8) Chairman WAPDA. However, the instant petition was filed by Executive Engineer PESCO (Rural) Division who has not only signed the petition but also the Vakalatnama. The said officer, undeniably, is not authorized by resolution of the Board of Directors of the company to file the instant petition before this Court.

6. According to the provisions of Order III Rule 1, C.P.C., any appearance, application or act in or to a civil court, required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such court, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, may be made or done in the following manner: i. by the party in person or ii. by his recognized agent or iii. by his pleader. The provisions of Rule 1 of Order III, C.P.C. for sake of convenience, reproduced below:

1. Appearances etc., may be in person, by recognized agent or by pleader. Any appearance, application or act in or to any Court, required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such Court, may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized agent, or by a pleader appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be, on his behalf: Provided that any such appearance shall, if the Court so directs, be made by the party in person.

7. The term 'act' as referred in the above extracted provisions is having a comprehensive meaning which includes all the acts, which include filing of Civil Revision either through the party in person, or by its recognized agent, or by a pleader.

8. As mentioned above, the PESCO being a company, the revision petition on behalf of company by a person or officer i.e. Executive Engineer (Rural) Division, would not be competent, unless he is so authorized through resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the company, in a duly convened meeting, after giving notice to all directors. While rendering this view, I am fortified by the dictum laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case titled, "Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot v. Messrs Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd. Lahore" (PLD 1971 Supreme Court 550). The Sindh High Court while adopting this view in the case titled "Messrs Razo (Pvt) Ltd. v. Director Karachi City Region Employees Old Age Benefit Institution and others" (2005 CLD 1208), was of the view that a person not duly authorized or empowered by means of the resolution of Board of Directors of Company, passed in properly convened meeting of the Board, would not be competent to institute legal proceedings in the court, on behalf of the company. The relevant excerpt from the said judgement reads as under: "From the discussion on this issue there is hardly any doubt with regard to the maintainability of this Constitutional petition. The Constitutional petition was filed by a person who was not authorized/empowered to file the same on behalf of the petitioner-Company Messrs Razo (Pvt) Ltd as he was not duly authorized/ empowered by means of a Resolution of the Board of Directors passed in a proper meeting of the Board of Directors. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that the illegal/unauthorized act of Saeed Ahmad Memon in filing/instituting the above Constitutional petition without authority or power could not be ratified or clothed with legality by a subsequent Resolution by the Board of Directors conferring on him to file/institute, conduct defend, compound or abandon the legal proceedings as the Supreme Court in the cases of (1) Messrs Muhammad Siddique Muhammad Umar and another (supra) and (2) Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot (supra) had pronounced that any proceedings or pleadings filed/instituted by a Director, Secretary or Principal Officer on behalf of a private limited company not having been duly authorized by Resolution by the Board of Directors to do so was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone."

9. This court while dilating upon the subject controversy expressed its view in case titled "Hasnain Cotex Ltd and 2 others v. Jasim Khan" 2012 YLR 2743) in the following manner: "We have noticed that the said Directors have not been authorized by the Board of Directors of the Company by means of a resolution, passed in a proper meeting of the Board of Directors. Law requires that the persons filing/instituting legal proceedings on behalf of a company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 should be duly empowered/ authorized through a resolution by the Board of Directors in a meeting of the Board of Directors duly convened in accordance with the Article of Association of the Company."

10. It is manifest from perusal of the above referred judgements that any proceedings on behalf of the corporation or company cannot be filed by a person unless duly authorized by the Board of Directors of the company through a proper drafted resolution passed in meeting of Board of Directors, duly convened for the purpose. The learned counsel for petitioners could not point out any averment in the appeal confirming that either signatory of the Vakalatnama in his favour was competent to file the civil revision on behalf of the company. It has also been noted that the memorandum of appeal is not signed and verified by the Chief Executive or legally authorized person which is against the mandate of Order XXIX Rule-1 of C.P.C., according to which, in a suit by or against the corporation any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of the corporation by Secretary or Director or other principal officer of the corporation, who is able to depose to the facts of the case.

11. Apart from the above, a memorandum of appeal can be signed, as per Rule 1 of Order XLI, C.P.C. by the appellant or his pleader, so can a revision petition be signed by the petitioner or his pleader as the revisional jurisdiction is a part of the general appellate jurisdiction of a superior court. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case titled "Shankar Ramchandra v. Krishnaji Dattatreya" (AIR 1970 SC 1). Similarly, Honourable Lahore High Court in the case titled. "Atta Muhammad v. Muhammad Bakhsh" reported as PLD 2004 Lahore 300 was of the view that the provisions of the C.P.C. in regard to appeals are applicable mutatis mutandis to revision petitions. Under these circumstances, a memorandum of appeal or a revision petition can be signed by a duly appointed pleader as per Rule 1 of Order XLI, C.P.C. and presented to the appellate or revisional court by him on behalf of the appellant or petitioner as per Rule 1 of Order III, C.P.C.

12. Moreover, the contents of Civil Revision have not been verified rather a certificate by the Executive Engineer PESCO (Rural) Division has been appended with the revision petition which states that no writ petition on the subject was filed earlier by the petitioner. Hence, the civil revision, without verification at to correctness of its contents, is not maintainable. Although, a power of attorney (Vakalatnama) on behalf of Chief Law Officers, PESCO Headquarter, Peshawar has been made available by the learned counsel for petitioner but the same was issued on 13.12.2022 whereas, this petition was filed on 02.03.2020 much prior to the said power of attorney. Hence, the preliminary objection of the learned counsel for petitioner is sustained and petition in hand, being not filed by a duly authorised person as discussed above, is held to be not maintainable.

13. Be that as it may, while adverting to the merits of the case,, the record transpires that the petitioner charged the respondent on the basis of alleged illegal use of electricity and in this regard DW-3, representative of petitioners, stated that:

14. Being beneficiary, the petitioner were required to prove the allegation of illegal use of electricity and genuineness of the assessments so imposed on plaintiff, but not an iota of evidence could have been brought on the record. It is however, an admitted fact that the electricity meter of the respondent was defective and she applied for its replacement which was not replaced. The petitioners in their written statement have specifically pleaded that in case of defective meter the respondents was required to pay the electricity bill according, to her previous average. The relevant excerpt from written statement reads as under:

15. Accordingly, the learned trial court burdened the respondent to pay the charges of electricity as per average of previous consumption. The relevant excerpt from the relief para of the judgment of learned Trial Court is reproduced hereunder: "Defendants are directed to prepare a bill to the plaintiff according to average monthly consumption of her previous 3 phase matter of the year 2013 for the period of September, 2014 to February, 2017 with average of 977 units per month as the minimum rate of that period and plaintiff shall be bound to deposit the said amount first, whereafter defendants shall be bound to remove the impugned amount

"

16. Hence, the plea of respondents as to charging of respondent at the average of past consumption has been acceded by the learned trial court and thereby the grievance of petitioner has been addressed properly. The impugned Judgments and Decrees are, therefore, well-reasoned and exception need not to be interfered with.

17. In view of the legal and factual aspect of the case, it is held that both the learned Courts below have not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned Judgment and Decrees, rather the same are found to be in accordance with law, and cannot be interfered with. Consequently, this revision petition stands dismissed by leaving the parties to bear, their own cost. MH/108/P Revision dismissed.