2002 PLP 1220 (SCMR)
Mian Najeeb Usman, Director — Petitioner Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through superintending Engineer, Electricity WAPDA, Shiekhupura — Respondent.
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1220 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Qazi Muhammad Farooq and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ |
| Parties | Mian Najeeb Usman, Director — Petitioner Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through superintending Engineer, Electricity WAPDA, Shiekhupura — Respondent. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1220 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1220 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Qazi Muhammad Farooq and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1220 (SCMR) (Mian Najeeb Usman, Director — Petitioner Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through superintending Engineer, Electricity WAPDA, Shiekhupura — Respondent.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Siddique, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Akram Khokhar, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.
The petitioner-company had filed a suit before the learned Civil Judge, Sheikhupura wherein a prayer was made to the effect that the Electricity Bill dated 16-6-1981 in the sum of Rs.5,61,970.05 tray be declared as illegal, void and, ineffective on its rights. The suit was decreed on 23-2-1985 and the' appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Sheikhupura vide judgment dated 23-5-1985. Thereafter, the respondent tiled a Civil Revision (No. 1142/1986) which was allowed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore on 3-5-1999, the concurrent findings of the two Courts below were set aside and the suit was dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The petitioner-company has sought leave to appeal against the said judgment.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision petition was badly barred by limitation but the delay was condoned for reasons devoid of substance and concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below were set aside without highlighting instances of misreading and non-reading of evidence. It was further contended that the High Court had not only overlooked- the admission of the XEN, WAPDA, that he had checked the meter through Revolving Switch and had not sent the same to the Laboratory for testing but also the statement of Electric Inspector (P.W.11) that it is not possible to judge the slowness of a meter through a Revolving Selector Switch.
3. The learned counsel for the caveator reiterated the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment on the basis whereof the revision petition was allowed and the suit dismissed. 4.. Leave to appeal is granted to consider the.contentions raised by the l learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Notice to the respondent. M.B.A.//S-190/S Leave to appeal granted.