Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 966 2017 SLD 966 2017 PLJ 294
Lahore High Court
C.R. No. 224 of 2008, decided on 27.9.2016. Date of hearing: 27.9.2016.
CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD, JAHANGIR, JUSTICE
Mr. Siddique Ahmad Chaudhary, Advocate for Petitioners. Mian Tahir Maqsood, Advocate for
Respondent.

FESCO THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND 5 others

VS

TEHSIL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, SHAHPUR THROUGH TEHSIL NAZIM SHAHPUR, DISTRICT SARGODHA--Respondent

Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----S. 115--Revisional jurisdiction--Consumer of energy supply--Utility bill--Challenge to--Defective, slowness of meter--Ulterior motive--Correction of errors of facts and law--Consumer of energy supply is a public department and it cannot be believed that for ulterior motive, equipment/meter could be tampered by its functionaries for saving payment to be made out of allocated budget for consumed units--Equipment/meter could be defective due to its life as well as weather or its mechanism--No iota of evidence is available on suit file to believe that meter was damaged by respondents for any ulterior motive--Meter might have gone slow when same was checked, but case history of equipment reflects that prior to issuance of disputed bill neither any complaint qua meter was made nor any notice was ever served upon any official of respondents--Report regarding its slowness is available on suit file, but maker of the-same was not got examined by petitioners and contents of same could not be proved as per law--Scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction by High Court is restricted and narrower, which is only meant for correcting errors of facts and law, if are found to have been committed by subordinate Courts in discharge of their judicial functions. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, JUSTICE The admitted facts of the case are that the respondents being public functionaries were consumers of energy supply, who instituted a declaratory suit against the petitioners while challenging the vires of utility bill for the month of May, 2004 with the averments that the same contained extra units and prayed for its cancellation/rectification. The said suit was resisted by the petitioners with the stance that on the surprise checking, the equipment/meter was found to be defective while reflecting slowness of 30%. The learned trial Court after completing the trial and appreciating the material available on the file, decreed the suit through judgment and decree dated 14.4.2007, which was also maintained when the learned lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners vide impugned…
🔒
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