2003 PLP 2226 (YLR)

Muhammad Ikram Siddiqui for Applicant. Atif Awan for Respondent. This revision arises out of an order dated 29-9-1992 passed by the Ist Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West in Suit No.951 of 1998, which findings were upheld by Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi-West in Civil Appeal No.87 of 1992, vide this judgment and decree dated 29-4-1993 and 23-5-1993 respectively. In a nutshell facts forming the background of the instant revision, are that respondent had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before Ist Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West impugning supplementary bill for Rs.86,070.10 together with consequential relief against the recovery and disconnecting of the .electricity supply to him. The learned trial Court on the pleadings of the parties framed as many as five issues which are as follows:-- Issue No. 1: Whether the suit is barred under section 54-C of Electricity Act, sections 42 and 56 of the Specific Relief Act? Issue No.2: Whether the matter recorded actual consumption during the period supplied was issued? Issue No.3: Whether after change of meter on 27-1-1985 the consumption increased considerably? Issue No.4: Whether amount of Rs.86,070.30 is outstanding, against plaintiff and defendant is entitled to claim the said amount? Issue No.5: What should the decree be? Learned trial Court after recording the evidence, though came to the conclusion that the suit is barred under section 54-C of Electricity Act, 1910, sections 42 and 56 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, finding in relation to other Issues Nos.2 and 3 were also against the respondents, yet the learned Court in its wisdom, decreed the suit partially for the settlement of accounts and at the same time, referred the matter to the Provincial Electricity Inspector for the settlement of the impugned demand. In furtherance to such reference the Electricity Inspector gave its findings and submitted a report dated 6-2-1991. The Electricity Inspector, in his finding apparently held that the respondent is liable to pay consumption charges for six months from August, 1984 to January, 1985 as against claim of the defendant from September, 1983 to January, .1985 i.e. for 17 months. The report was accepted despite objection by the appellant vide order dated 29-9-1992: This order was unsuccessfully assailed before Ist Additional. District Judge, Karachi-West, in Civil Appeal No.87 of 1992. Mr. Muhammad Ikram Siddiqui learned counsel for the applicant contends that the suit at the very outset was barred and it was so held by the learned trial Court therefore, further proceedings in the matter are nullity and of no consequence. It was further urged that the findings of the Electricity Inspector are in favour of the appellant yet he had given premium to the respondent for his wrong which under law he was not entitled to give and the objections of the appellant to such report were not considered by the trial Court. On the other hand Mr. Atif Awan, learned counsel for the respondent while refuting the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant urged that no jurisdictional error has been pointed out to interfere in revisional jurisdiction of this Court. He supported the orders of the Courts below. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. In my humbly opinion once a Court comes to the conclusion that some other authority or forum possess the jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy raised in the suit and the Court itself is bereft of jurisdiction, then best course is to desist from expressing its opinion or attempting to decide the controversy in any manner that may prejudice the case of either party before the forum or tribunal having ultimate jurisdiction. This view also finds support from a case reported as Mst. Samra Ashfaq v. Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, S&GAD, 1996 SCMR 273 in this case the Service Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction in the matter yet proceeded to express opinion on the merits of the case the Honourable Supreme Court depreciated such course of action and held at page 280:-- "If a tribunal is of the opinion that it has no jurisdiction it should stop then and there and should preferably not venture on expressing opinion on the merits of the case. " In the instant case also, Court had come to a conclusion that, it has no jurisdiction. The Court rightly referred the controversy to the Provincial Electricity Inspector, the Authority, competent under section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 for deciding the controversy in accordance with law. Further, the appropriate course left to the Court was to leave the parties to contest the matter before hierarchy provided under the Act of 1910 itself instead, the trial Court, itself decided the objections filed against the report while doing so learned trial Court stepped over its jurisdiction and entered into the domain of the other as the learned trial Court after receipt of the report from the Electricity Inspector sat over it as an appellate forum and gave its finding on the same. The same error was carried up to Appellate Court. The trial Court committed jurisdictional error by passing preliminary decree for accounts, more particularly when no such relief was prayed for. No doubts the Court do possess jurisdiction to mould relief in appropriate case in order to meet the ends of justice but not where the Court itself is bereft of any jurisdiction over the 'lis' before it. In this view of the matter judgment and decree passed by the both Courts below cannot be sustained. However, before parting of the judgment it may be observed that while passing any judgment and decree in the manner aforesaid the parties were deprived of their right to appeal before the Provincial Government against the decision of Electricity Inspector. It is settled principle of law, no party should be prejudiced for the act of the Court, under the circumstances of the case it is deemed appropriate to observe that the parties if so choose may, impugn the findings of the Electricity Inspector dated 6-2-1991 before hierarchy provided under the Electricity Act, 1910, in accordance with law, question of limitation may be considered by the appellate forum favourable in consonance with the equitable principle contained in section 14 of the Limitation Act, which gives sufficient protection against the bar of limitation to a person honestly and diligently pursuing his case before the Court not seized of the jurisdiction, with the foregoing observation the revision stands disposed of. S.M.B./K-81/K Order accordingly.