WAPDA Vs Nasrullah Khan

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

D.I.KHAN BENCH

(Judicial Department)

C.R. No.27-D/2016.

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 29.02.2016

Appellant-Petitioner WAPDA through Chairman WAPDA and others by Mr. Arif Rahim Ustrana Advocate.

Respondent Nasrullah Khan

MUHAMMAD GHAZANFAR KHAN, J.-

Through the instant revision petition, being filed under Section 115 CPC, Wapda through its Chairman and eight others have called in question the validity, legality and propriety of the judgment dated 08.12.2015, rendered by learned Additional District Judge-IV, D.I.Khan, whereby appeal preferred by petitioners against the judgment dated 06.12.2012 of the learned Civil Judge-VI, D.I.Khan, has been dismissed.

2.Short facts of the case are that

respondent/plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioners/defendants seeking declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that electricity bills to the tune of Rs: 2,27,142/- for the month of April, 2009, for the month of May, 2009 i.e.

Rs:2,75,862 with reference to electricity meter installed on the house of respondent bearing account Kifayat/*

No.04663201980008R are against law, facts and based on malafide and have been sent just to harass the respondent; that respondent is not liable to make payment of bills w.e.f. December, 2007 to April, 2009. Respondent also sought a restraint order to the respondents not to harass him by disconnecting the electricity connection on the basis of impugned bills and to issue the current bill.

3.When summoned by the trial Court, the petitioners contested the suit by filing their written statement. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed as many as five issues including the relief, whereafter parties produced their respective evidence. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 06.12.2012, decreed the suit, however, the respondent-plaintiff was ordered to pay Rs:24,548/-, as was admitted by him in the plaint to be outstanding amount.

4.Aggrieved of the afore-said judgment, petitioners preferred an appeal before District Judge, D.I.Khan which was entrusted for disposal to Additional District Judge-IV, D.I.Khan. The appellate Court after hearing both the sides, dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment dated 08.12.2015, hence the instant revision petition.

Kifayat/*

5.Arguments heard and the available

record gone through.

6.It appears from the record available on the file that on the request of respondent-plaintiff, electricity supply was disconnected to his premises, which has been proved through Ex. PW 1/1 and Ex.

PW 1/2, perusal of which show that electricity supply from November, 2007 to February, 2009 remained disconnected, but despite that the petitioners kept on sending the impugned bills to the respondent’s premises. This fact has also been admitted by DW-1 when deposed before the trial Court by producing the relevant record. Admittedly, the bill for the month of November, 2007 was Rs:58,584/-, out of which the respondent made payment of Rs:12,000/-, Rs:10,000/- and Rs:12,000/- in June, 2008. Needless to say that when electricity supply to the premises of respondent- plaintiff was disconnected vide letter No.1098 dated 31.7.2006, then sending of bills and that too having ‘0’ consumed units, does not appeal to a prudent mind, what to talk of arrears including fine. The judgments and decrees of both the Courts below decreeing the suit of respondent-plaintiff are correct and in accord with law. Learned counsel for petitioners has failed to point out any misreading, non-reading of evidence available on the file or any Kifayat/*

jurisdictional defect in the concurrent findings of the two Courts below.

7.The concurrent findings recorded by the two Courts below neither suffer from illegality, material irregularity, misreading and non-reading of evidence available on the file, which cannot be interfered with, in view of dicta laid down in cases of ‘Alamgir Khan through Legal Heirs and others Vs. Haji Abdul Sittar Khan and others’ (2009 S C M R 54 and ‘Moulvi Muhammad Azeem Vs. Alhaj Mehmood Khan Bangesh and another’ (2010 S C M R 817).

8.For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition, being bereft of merit, stands dismissed in ‘limine’.

Announced.

Dt: 29.02.2016 JUDGE

Kifayat/*