' The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that the respondent secured telephone connection from the petitioners. The petitioners disconnected the same on 26-8-2000 without issuing any notice to the respondent. The respondent being aggrieved filed suit for damages against the petitioners before the Civil Judge, Sialkot. The petitioners filed written statement controverted the allegations levelled in the plaint. The respondent also filed application with the suit for ad interim relief. The trial Court restored the telephone connection of the respondent and decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 30-10-2002. The petitioners being aggrieved filed appeal before the Additional District Judge, Sialkot who dismissed the same and reduced the, amount of damages from Rs,25,000 to Rs,15,000 vide judgment and decree dated 26-2-2003. The petitioners being aggrieved filed this revision petition.
2. Learned counsel of the petitioners submits that both the Courts below erred in law to decree the suit of the respondent without framing issues. He further submits that application for ad interim relief was fixed before the trial Court and the trial Court erred in law to decree the suit while deciding the application for ad interim relief of the respondent. He further submits that respondent filed the suit without availing proper remedy before the higher authorities of the petitioners under the provisions of Pakistan Telecommunication Re-organization Act, 1996. He further submits that petitioners have taken a bona fide action against the respondent as the respondent secured telephone connection in the premises wherein her brother had secured connection and he was defaulter of Rs,28,877 against Telephone No,85811. Therefore, petitioners were justified to disconnect the connection of the respondent without notice as the respondent secured the telephone connection from the petitioners by playing fraud and misrepresentation. He further submits that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioners and perused the record.
4. It is admitted fact that respondent has secured telephone connection from the petitioners.
Therefore, respondent has secured a vested right. The petitioners have to disconnect the connection of the petitioners qua the telephone in question after notice to the respondent. It is admitted fact on record that petitioners have disconnected the connection of the respondent without any notice. Learned counsel of the petitioners was asked to produce any copy of notice sent by the petitioners to the respondent for disconnection of the telephone in question as alleged by the petitioners in written statement as well as in reply of the application but the learned counsel of the petitioners failed to point out any document on record to show that the connection was disconnected by the petitioners after notice. It is settled proposition of law that principle of natural justice must be read in each and every statute unless and until the same is prohibited by the wording of Statute itself as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Fazal-urRehman PLD 1964 SC 410. Both the Courts below have given concurrent finding of fact against the petitioners that petitioners had disconnected the connection of the respondent without any notice. Therefore, judgments of both the Courts below are in accordance with the law laid down by the Honourable supreme Court in the following judgments:-
(1) Zakir Ahmad's case PLD 1965 SC 90
(2) Pakistan and others v. Public at large PLD 1987 SC 304
(3) Pakistan Chrome Mines v. The Enquiry Officer 1983 SCMR 1208 ' It is also settled principle of law that when the basic order is without lawful authority then superstructure shall have to fall on the ground automatically as the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court as well as by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:--
(1) Crescent Sugar Mills v. C.B.R. PLD 1982 Lahore 1
(2) Yousaf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia PLD 1958 SC 104 ' It is also settled principle of law that judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution. The impugned order passed by the petitioners is in violation of the aforesaid judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court. Therefore, Civil Court has jurisdiction to take the cognizance under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Zafar-ul-Ahsan's case PLD 1960 SC 113. It is also settled principle of law that mere technicalities should not be hindrance to do complete justice as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Manager Jammu and Kashmir State ,Property v. Khuda Yar and others PLD 1975 SC 678.
Even otherwise both the Courts below were justified to award meagre damages to the petitioners.
This is the only process to save the poor people of Pakistan from the clutches of the public functionaries who are usually taking the law in their own hands and shall not proceed in terms of the law which is the need of the day. This process can only save the nation and the people of Pakistan from destruction. The public functionaries and other authorities shall run the country smoothly in case the law of Tort is established in this country.
' In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.