2009 PLP 937 (CLC)

MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.-- PESCO through Chief Engineer PESCO, PESCO House, Peshawar and four others have filed the instant revision petition against Asmatullah and three others under section 115, C.P.C. challenging the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Bannu, dated 29-1-2004 vide which the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge-III, Bannu, dated 7-11-2003 was maintained.

2. Briefly narrated the facts of the case are that Asmatullah, plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that the plaintiff-respondent was consumer of electricity to Bungalow No.20 Survey No. 311 situated in Defence Officers Colony, Bannu vide Connection No.6612-01144005 and that he has not defaulted in payment of the consumed energy and the billing by the petitioners-defendants A from May, 1996 to 30-4-1998 during disconnection period was illegal, against the principles of natural justice, without notice, passed at the back of the plaintiff-respondents, based on mala fide and hence, is not binding on the plaintiff-respondent and thus, the petitioners-defendants are not entitled to claim Rs.82,678 from the plaintiff-respondent. He had also prayed for decree for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner to recover the suit amount.

3. The defendants-petitioners were summoned who submitted their detailed written statement in which the allegations contained in the plaint were hotly contested. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as 16 issues 'including the relief.

4. The parties produced their respective evidence as they wished to adduce and the learned trial Court, after scanning the evidence and taking into consideration the data available on the record, decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent to the extent of Rs.55,089 pertaining to the period for which bill was sent during the disconnection of supply to the premises and the same was declared as null and void. However, the plaintiff-respondent was held liable to Rs.16,770 as arrears for actual consumed energy vide judgment and decree in Suit No.348/1 decided on, 7-11-2003. The defendants-petitioners filed an appeal which came for hearing before learned Additional District Judge-IV, Bannu who, while concurring with the learned trial Court, dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree in Civil Appeal No.11/13 of 2004 decided on 25-1-2004. Hence, the instant revision petition by the defendants-petitioners PESCO etc.

5. Mr. Arif Rahim Ustrana, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the plaintiff respondent was consumer of electricity of PESCO but he was also the employee of the said Department. In spite of the fact that the meter had been disconnected, he had installed another meter and in that way had consumed the energy and thus, he was validly charged in the suit bill, therefore, the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court have fallen into an error by decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent.

6. On the other hand, Muhammad Ayaz Khan Qasuria, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No.1 submitted that once it is proved on the record that during the disputed period, the supply remained disconnected, the respondent was not entitled to the issuance of the bill for the energy.

7. I have gone through the record of the case and scanned the entire evidence on the file.

8. Murtaza Khan, Commercial Assistant appeared as P.W.I. and he unequivocally admitted the disconnection of the supply. It was also admitted that the meter along with all the material appliances were taken C away by PESCO and the supply to the premises remained disconnected from June. 1996 to May, 1998. Sardar Ali Shah, Data Coder/Entry Operator appeared as P. W.2 but, however, he showed his ignorance regarding the calculation. D.W.I. Nisar Ahmad LS-1, Urban Sub-Division, Bannu had appeared and he has categorically admitted that the mater was removed on 16-2-1996 after notice to the plaintiff but no such notice has been brought on the record. He also showed his ignorance regarding the sending of the letter Exh.P.W.I/32 to the plaintiff-respondent. He, however, denied the suggestion that from April, 1996 to April, 1998 no meter was installed in the house of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1.

9. Scanning of the above evidence reveals that it is abundantly proved on the record that from June, 1996 to May, 1998 the electric supply remained disconnected to the premises of respondent No.1 and in this respect, the two Courts below have taken into consideration the attending circumstances and relevant evidence on the record.

10. The learned two Courts below have recorded concurrent findings against the petitioners which are strictly in accordance with the well established principles of appreciation o. evidence. No misreading or non-reading of evidence has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners nor any irregularity has been hinted to in the proceedings of the two Courts below. Thus, the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two Courts below cannot be set at naught in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court in view of the 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.

11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, this revision petition fails which is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./91/P Petition dismissed.