Law:

Section:

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 42---Suit for declaration---WAPDA had impugned concurrent decrees of Courts below whereby declaratory suit filed by respondents was decreed---Respondents sought declaration to the effect that detection bill issued by WAPDA, was illegal---One respondent did not appear as witness and the other respondent claimed that he had purchased property in respect or which disputed bill had been issued but said respondent could not produce any sale-deed or other document showing transfer of title to him---Respondent also could not bring on record any application filed by hint with WAPDA for change of name---WAPDA not only had produced detection bill, but also produced S.D.Os. as witnesses who proved that disputed bill had rightly been issued to the registered consumer/first respondent---WAPDA had fully proved by producing evidence that seals and postal orders pasted on the meter-box were broken and that first respondent was present at the time of checking of meter---Respondents had failed to discharge the onus of proof placed on them and could not prove that no tampering was made with the meter---Suit, in circumstances should have been dismissed even if WAPDA had not produced defence evidence---Courts below having exercised their jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity, concurrent s and decrees of Courts below, were set aside---Suit of respondents stood dismissed, in circumstances. Mian Khurshid Alam Ramay for Petitioners. Respondents: Ex parte. Date of hearing: 24th March, 2005. JUDGMENT JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The respondents/plaintiffs have been served but none has appeared on their behalf despite service. They are, therefore, proceeded against ex parte. 2. Petitioners/defendants, namely, WAPD A and its functionaries impugn the concurrent decrees of the learned trial Court dated 24-9-1995 and of the learned appellate Court dated 28-9-2000 whereby a declaratory suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was decreed. 3. The facts of this case are simple. The respondents/plaintiffs sought a declaration to the effect that a detection bill issued by WAPDA for a sum of Rs.50,299 was illegal. The position evident from the…

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