Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2 & S.100---Excess billing---Excess electricity bill---Suit filed by plaintiff was dismissed and of trial court was upheld by Appellate Court---Concurrent findings of courts below---Plaintiff filed second appeal before High Court---Courts below had not properly appreciated documentary evidence---Statement of the plaintiff was not cross-examined by defendants to the extent of excess billing---Documents exhibited in additional evidence had proved the case of plaintiff/appellant---Validity---Copy of correction of the electricity bill had been placed on file by electricity department---Letter had been issued by electricity department, wherein, it was mentioned that the Committee constituted for settlement of the disputes of electricity bills probed into the case of the appellant with regard to excess bills and had recommended refund/adjustment of the excess amount---Admittedly, department had issued excess bill to the appellant whereas they were not authorized under law to issue such average or excess bill---Present case was fit one of concurrent findings which merited interference by High Court in second appeal---Judgments and orders of Trial Court and Appellate Court were set aside---Suit of the plaintiff was decreed against the defendants. Syed Lal Hussain Shah v. Lal Muhammad and 5 others 2005 CLC 1076 and Sultan Muhammad v. Haji Khair Muhammad PLD 2008 Quetta 1 ref. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: SARDAR ABDUL HAMEED KHAN, JUSTICE:---.--- This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge Mirpur dated 26-9-2005, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed. Brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the present appellant has filed a suit for perpetual-cum-mandatory injunction against respondents-defendants, S.D.O Electricity Department and others, in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge Mirpur stating therein that he was a resident of Sector Ban Khurman situated in Mirpur. It is further stated that the petitioner was a fair consumer of electricity and was holding an Account No. 1203/BK. The plaintiff stated that he has been…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492