P L D 1994 Peshawar 16 (PLP)

Date of hearing: 13th September, 1993. On the receipt of an electricity consumption bill in the sum of Rs.25,264 from WAPDA Ziarat Gul, the petitioner herein, in the year 1991 filed a suit by contesting the correctness of the electricity charges and the notice received thereafter for disconnection of the power supply. WAPDA and others who were defendants before the trial Court resisted the suit. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Dir at Taimergara after settling as many as six issues between the parties arising out of the pleadings recorded evidence pro and contra and thereafter on 9‑3‑1992 recorded a declaratory decree as prayed for.

2. The Additional District Judge on appeal filed by the Executive Engineer, WAPDA and others set aside the judgment and decree impugned and sent the case back to the trial Court for decision afresh. In his view the evidence available on record being deficient the trial Judge 'was required to record further evidence in the case in order to arrive over a correct conclusion on the controversy between the parties relating to the accusation of tampering with the electricity meter by the petitioner and the charge of pilfering the electricity. The learned Additional District Judge also re‑cast the following two issues:‑‑ (1) Whether the outstanding amount in regard to the units consumed by the respondent not taken by the Meter Reader. If so, its effect? (2) Whether the outstanding amount is the value of the units assessed as arrears against the respondent? The petitioner is not satisfied with the remand of his case by the Appellate Court. Hence this petition under section 115, C.P.C.

3. I have heard Mr. Nasir Mahfooz Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Abdul Aziz Kundi, Advocate for the WAPDA officials. The learned counsel made much stress on the argument that the Appellate Court has re cast certain issues without any objection from either side on the issues already framed in the suit at the trial stage. Order 14, Rule 1, C.P.C. relates to the framing of the issues. Issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other and these are of two kinds, i.e., issues of fact and issues of law. It is the duty of the Judge himself to frame proper issues. The object of framing issues is to ascertain the real dispute between the parties in a suit by narrowing down the area of conflict and finding out as where they differ. In the instant case the Appellate Court could reframe or re‑cast issues, whatever the case may be, if in its opinion the issues earlier framed by the trial Court were either insufficient or not properly l worded and it could definitely do so under Order XIV of the Code. This would not be a material argument that no body asked the Appellate Court to re‑cast or re‑frame issues which it did by itself.

4. In this view of the matter I see no exception to the impugned judgment and order whereby on the re‑casting of issues the learned Appellate Court remanded the case for decision afresh on certain points by the trial Court after recording evidence on both sides. No error in the exercise of jurisdiction has been shown or that the Additional District Judge has acted illegally or with material irregularity in recording the impugned order. The petition is without substance. Dismissed with costs. A.A./1499/P Revision dismissed.