2012 PLP 1270 (MLD)
Ch. NIZAM DIN — Petitioner Versus WAPDA through Chairman and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 1270 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Ch. NIZAM DIN — Petitioner Versus WAPDA through Chairman and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 1270 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 1270 (MLD)?
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: 2012 PLP 1270 (MLD) (Ch. NIZAM DIN — Petitioner Versus WAPDA through Chairman and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Tariq Ahmed for Petitioner.
- Barrister Muhammad Ahmed Pansota for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2
Electricity Act (IX of 1910), S. 24(1)
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42
Plaintiff (petitioner) had filed a suit for declaration against the authority (respondent) on the ground that the latter with mala fide intention disconnected the electricity connection of the plaintiff and got registered a criminal case against him with the allegation that the plaintiff had committed theft of electricity
Authority issued a detection bill to the plaintiff, who along with the declaratory suit filed an application under O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C, but same was dismissed by the Trial Court
Appeal against order of Trial Court was allowed by the First Appellate Court subject to the plaintiff depositing half the amount of the impugned detection bill within one month, and furnishing a surety bond for the remaining amount before the Trial Court
Contentions of the plaintiff were that the F.I.R. registered against him had been cancelled after thorough investigation, and that notice under S. 24(1) of the Electricity Act, 1910, had not been given to him before disconnecting his meter
Record revealed that F.I.R. against the plaintiff regarding theft of electricity had not been cancelled as yet but same was only recommended for cancellation
Ingredients required for grant of temporary injunction were lacking in the case
Question of fact was involved in the case which could not be decided without recording evidence
Order of First Appellate Court was reasonable and the court had rightly accepted the application of the plaintiff subject to deposit of one half of the impugned detection bill and to furnish surety bonds for the remaining amount
Discretionary relief had already been granted to the plaintiff and no illegal or material irregularity was found in the impugned order
Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
CH. SHAHID SAEED, J.
The brief history of the case is that petitioner filed a suit for declaration on the ground that the petitioner is consumer of electricity meter No.22-3132-72025208; that the petitioner used to pay electricity bill regularly; that on 28-10-2009 respondents/ defendants with mala fide intention disconnected the electricity connection of petitioner and got registered criminal case F.I.R. No.721 of 2009 under Electricity Act, 1910 with the allegation that the petitioner has committed theft of Electricity. Further after disconnecting electricity connection the respondents issued deduction bill of Rs.12,67000. That later on the above mentioned F.I.R. was recommended to be cancelled by the local Police after thoroughly investigation declaring it false and frivolous; it was further alleged in the plaint that number of requests were made to respondents to restore the electricity connection of petitioner but the respondents refused to do so. Along with the suit petitioner filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. which was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 14-7-2011. Petitioner preferred an appeal which was allowed by the learned 1st Appellate Court in the manner that the petitioner will deposit one half amount of impugned detection bill within one month, whereas he will furnish surety bond for the remaining half amount before the trial court. Feeling aggrieved by the said order petitioner has filed the instant Civil Revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned orders are against law and without lawful authority; that the F.I.R. No.721 of 2009 has been cancelled after thorough investigation; Further argued that notice under section 24(1) of Electricity Act, 1910 has not been given to the petitioner before disconnecting his meter.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that there is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned orders and has also supported the same.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Undisputedly, it is a money matter in which huge amount in shape of deduction bill is involved. Record reflects that F.I.R. against the petitioner regarding theft of electricity has yet not been cancelled but only the same has been recommended for cancellation. Question of fact is involved in the matter which cannot be decided without recording the evidence of both the parties. All the basic three ingredients for grant of temporary injunction are lacking in this case. Learned Appellate court has rightly accepted the application of the petitioner subject to deposit of one half of the impugned detection bill and with respect to remaining amount it was ordered to furnish surety bonds. The impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge is quite reasonable. Discretionary relief has already been granted to the petitioner. I find no illegality or material irregularity in it.
6. For the foregoing reasons, there is no force in the instant civil revision and the same is dismissed. M.W.A./N-34/L Revision dismissed.