Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 2115 2016 SLD 2115 2016 YLR 205
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 1510 of 2006, decided & hearing on 31-10-2014.
WAQAR AHMAD SETH, JUSTICE
Gul Nazir Azam for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondent.

THE CHAIRMAN, WAPDA AND 4 others

VS

. MESSRS SITARA MARBLES INDUSTRY THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR

Law:

Section:

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Suit for declaration---Revision---Requirements---Disconnection of electricity supply---Contention of plaintiff was that impugned bill of electricity was wrong and illegal---Suit was decreed concurrently---Validity---Defendants (petitioners) were bound to annex/accompany all the exhibited documents and record of the case with the revision petition---Revision application could not be entertained unless accompanied by copies of all the documents and record---Defendants would suffer for non producing such copies---Electric meter was installed outside the premises of plaintiff (consumer) and being an industrial connection was under the control of SDO concerned---Electric bill, in question for the month of November 1997 was prepared without detail of consumption from the month of January, 1997 to December, 1997---No solid and convincing proof existed with regard to alleged reversal of meter and its reading---No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence or jurisdictional defect was pointed out in the impugned s and decrees passed by the courts below---Both the courts below had rightly appreciated the evidence on record---Revision was dismissed in, circumstances. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revision---Requirements---All exhibited documents and record to be annexed/accompanied with the revision petition. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court to interfere in concurrent findings was limited---Concurrent findings recorded by competent courts on question of fact or law however erroneous the same might be, could not be interfered with by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction unless said findings were suffering from jurisdictional defect, illegality or material irregularity. (d) Administration of justice--- ----Court to give effect to each and every provisions of law. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: WAQAR AHMAD SETH, JUSTICE:----------- This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2006 passed in Civil Appeal No. 30/13 of 2006…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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