This civil revision assails judgments and decrees dated 20.3.1997 and 16.2.2001 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and learned District Judge, Bhakkar, respectively, deciding the lis against the petitioners.
2. A short factual background of the case is that Syed Irshad Hussain Abdi was a consumer of the petitioners vide Account No, 52259 according to the revenue record of the petitioners. He is January, 1983 received an electricity bill containing arrears of Rs, 2165.23, claiming to be outstanding against Account No, 52260. He contested this bill and contacted WAPDA authorities apprising them that the bill issued does not relate to his electricity connection where against, there is no arrears, as he had been paying the entire bills regularly against Account No, 52259. His request for withdrawal of bill was not accepted by the concerned WAPDA authorities which conduct, coerced him to file a suit for permanent injunction before the Civil Court but it was dismissed due to non-compliance of order of deposit by the trial court and consequently his electric supply was disconnected and remained suspended for long eight years. In the meanwhile, Syed Irshad Hussain Abdi, original consumer, approached Hon'ble Ombudsman and under the orders therefrom, his electricity connection was restored in 1991. At this stage, Syed Irshad Hussain Abdi, filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs, 25,000/- as damages against the petitioners for illegal and unauthorised disconnection of his power supply for eight years. Pending suit, Syed Irshad Hussain Abdi, died and his legal representatives were, substituted in his place.
3. The petitioners being defendants in the suit, controverted the allegations in the plaint and denied their liability to pay damages on the ground that they did not disconnect electricity connection of the deceased plaintiff and besides it they claimed that suit by the plaintiff, was barred by limitation. Controversial pleadings of the parties, necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence. Trial Court after doing the needful and after appraising the evidence on 20.3.1997, decreed the suit for recovery of Rs, 25,000/-, as damages, sustained by the respondents.
4. The petitioners aggrieved by the decision of-the trial Court dated 20.3.1997 filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Bhakkar, but. remained unsuccessful as their appeal was dismissed on 16.2.2001, whereafter they filed instant revision. petition before this Court seeking annulment of concurrent judgments and decrees of the two Courts below.
5. Notice to the respondents were issued and Respondent No, 3 was served for the date 10.10.2003 but did not appear and thus was proceeded against ex-parte. Remaining respondents were served with fresh notices for today, but nobody turns to defend this petition, hence, they are also proceeded against ex-parte.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that suit of the respondents was barred by limitation and, thus, could not have been decreed because according to them the alleged disconnection of his electric supply took place in May, 1983, whereas the suit under adjudication was filed on 7.10.1993, after the lapse of about nine years. He further contends that disconnection of electric supply was against Account No, 52260 which was not in the name of late Syed Irshad Hussain Abdi and thus he could not maintain any kind of suit for damages, on the basis, thereon. He further elaborates his arguments by saying that original plaintiff died, pending suit, without any final verdict by the trial Court and in this manner legal representatives of the deceased, plaintiff, were not competent to follow the damages suit. He in support of his contentions referred to judgments in cases of Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. Messrs Habib & Co. and others (PLD 1967 Karachi 755) and A Majid Sama vs. The Asbestos Cement Industries Ltd. and another (1996 M LD 803).
6. I have anxiously considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the record. Disconnection of electric supply is not denied by the petitioners, the only thing urged by the petitioners is that disconnection was against the account which was not in the name of the original deceased plaintiff. The original consumer on receipt of bill containing arrears against Account No, 52260 had been, pursuing matter before the WAPDA authorities but nobody attended to his hue and cry whereafter he filed a suit for permanent injunction and on dismissal of it, his electric supply was disconnected. He was forced to approach Hon'ble Ombudsman and under, the orders of that authority, his connection was restored by the petitioners. In view of these facts, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to say that electric supply of Syed Irshad Hussain Abdi was not disconnected by them. This argument appears to be an after-thought and only a fake attempt to same the skin of the petitioners, from penal consequences in form of damages, in lieu of their illegal and unauthorised act of disconnection of electric supply. To my mind, assertion of the petitioners that bill of arrears did not relate to the account of the original plaintiff, goes against them because by this arguments, they admitted that there was nothing outstanding Account No, 52259 in the name of Syed Irshad Hussain Abdi. Disconnection of electric supply of the respondents on the basis of arrears against some other account, is more cruel and on this basis, they cannot escape from the liability incurred by them, subject of this suit.
7. On moved by Syed Irshad Hussain Abdi, Hon'ble Ombudsman, under went the agony of determination of dispute regarding disconnection of electric supply and through its order dated 20.8.1991 mandated that amount claimed by the petitioners was not due from the respondents and, thus, found that disconnection of electricity was not justified. Hon'ble Ombudsman got restored the electric supply of the respondents which fact could not be refuted by the petitioners.
Order of the Hon'ble Onibudsman was not further challenged by the petitioners and has attained finality. In presence of this order, arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners loose substance and it is a complete answer to the arguments of the petitioners regarding limitation, as well, because from the date of this order, suit in hand is within time. Order of the Hon'ble Ombudsman was passed on 30.8.1991 and the suit in hand was filed on 7.10.1992.
8. Judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners relate to tort action wherein on account of some alleged defamition plaintiff filed suit for damages but died pending suit. In the case in hand, situation is altogether different. The respondents who are sons and daughters of late Syed Irshad Hussain Abdi, had been living along him, during sufferings for long eight years, due to illegal and unauthorised activity of the petitioners, I am of the affirmed view that Maxim: "actio personalis moritur cum persona", is not applicable to the case in hand, for the simple reason, heirs/legal representatives of the plaintiff deceased had also sustained damages, as mentioned above.
10. For what has been discussed above, both the Courts below have rightfully exercised their jurisdiction and judgments, thus, returned by them, are in consonance with the evidence on the file which has neither been asserted nor is proved to have been mis-read or non-read, in absence of which no interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court is permissible, under law. Both the Courts below committed no illegality or irregularity, this revision petition has no merits in it and is consequently dismissed, with costs.