2006 PLP 758 (CLC)
WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman and 2 others — Petitioners Versus NASIR IBRAHIM and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 758 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman and 2 others — Petitioners Versus NASIR IBRAHIM and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 758 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 758 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 758 (CLC) (WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman and 2 others — Petitioners Versus NASIR IBRAHIM and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Khurshid Alam Ramay for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 42
WAPDA had impugned concurrent decrees of Courts below whereby declaratory suit filed by respondents was decreed
Respondents sought declaration to the effect that detection bill issued by WAPDA, was illegal
One respondent did not appear as witness and the other respondent claimed that he had purchased property in respect or which disputed bill had been issued but said respondent could not produce any sale-deed or other document showing transfer of title to him
Respondent also could not bring on record any application filed by hint with WAPDA for change of name
WAPDA not only had produced detection bill, but also produced S.D.Os. as witnesses who proved that disputed bill had rightly been issued to the registered consumer/first respondent
WAPDA had fully proved by producing evidence that seals and postal orders pasted on the meter-box were broken and that first respondent was present at the time of checking of meter
Respondents had failed to discharge the onus of proof placed on them and could not prove that no tampering was made with the meter
Suit, in circumstances should have been dismissed even if WAPDA had not produced defence evidence
Courts below having exercised their jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity, concurrent judgments and decrees of Courts below, were set aside
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
The respondents/plaintiffs have been served but none has appeared on their behalf despite service. They are, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.
2. Petitioners/defendants, namely, WAPD A and its functionaries impugn the concurrent decrees of the learned trial Court dated 24-9-1995 and of the learned appellate Court dated 28-9-2000 whereby a declaratory suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was decreed.
3. The facts of this case are simple. The respondents/plaintiffs sought a declaration to the effect that a detection bill issued by WAPDA for a sum of Rs.50,299 was illegal. The position evident from the record is that Nasir Ibrahim (respondent No.1/plaintiff) being a registered consumer was entitled to supply of electricity from WAPDA. He did not appear as a witness in the case. Muhammad Tahir (respondent No.2/plaintiff) claimed that he had purchased the property in respect of which the disputed bill had been issued, from Nasir Ibrahim. He did not produce any sale-deed or other document showing the transfer of title to him. Furthermore, he did not bring on record any application filed by him with WAPDA for change of name.
4. On the other hand, the petitioners/defendants not only produced the detection bill (Exh.D.2) but also produced three S.D.Os. as witnesses who proved that the disputed bill had rightly been issued to the B registered consumer, namely, Nasir Ibrahim. Muhammad Haroon Rashid, S.D.O. appeared as D.W.3. He testified that he had checked the meter and found the seals and postal orders pasted on the meter box, broken. He also testified that when the checking was done the plaintiff was present.
5. In the above circumstances, it is quite clear that the respondents/plaintiffs failed to discharge the onus of proof placed on them in respect of issues Nos.6 and
7. It was firstly incumbent upon Nasir Ibrahim, who was the registered consumer, to enter the witness-box and depose on oath that there was no tampering with the meter and secondly, that he had sold the property in which such meter was C installed, to the second respondent. Furthermore, as noted above, no document or conveyance, registered or otherwise, was produced to prove the bald assertion made by' respondent No.2 that he had purchased the aforesaid property from Nasir Ibrahim. In these circumstances the suit should have been dismissed even if the petitioners/defendants had not produced evidence in defence.
6. However, as discussed above, the petitioners did produce evidence to show that the meter installed at the premises in question had been tampered with. The calculations, on the basis of which the disputed bill of Rs.50,299 was based, have been reproduced in Exh.D.2.
7. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find that the learned Courts below exercised their jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. The impugned judgments and decrees are, therefore, not legally sustainable. The same are set aside. As a result, the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs stands dismissed. H.B.T./W-44/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.