1. ' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.---A declaratory suit instituted by the petitioner qua a demand notice dated 9-2-1999 for a sum of Rs.33,989 was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 19-2- 2003. Appeal preferred thereagainst by the respondents, however was accepted by the learned District Judge, Mianwali on 13-9-2003. This is revision petition qua the same.
2. ' Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The suit instituted by the petitioner was based on the assertion that in the year 1989 his tubewell became out of order and was not in working condition. As a result he made an application dated 4-12-1989 to the Executive Engineer, Mianwali for disconnection of the electricity supply, which was followed by another application dated 5-12- 1989 moved before the Superintending Engineer WAPDA. The case of the petitioner was that demand made through notice dated 9-2-1999 after bout 10 years was wholly unjustified and illegal.
3. As against that the plea of the respondents/defendants was that there was no disconnection order made by any of the competent authorities and that the petitioner/plaintiff was liable to pay the said amount, whiclf was due from him. Necessary issues were framed by the trial Court and evidence as the parties wished was produced by them. On consideration of the evidence, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mianwali came to the conclusion on appraisal of evidence in particular Exh.P.1 and Exh.P.2 (applications and orders of the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer) that the said applications had indeed been made by the petitioner/plaintiff for disconnection of the electricity supply and demand raised in the year 1999 after 9 years w.As iiegal and unjustified. The suit was decreed accordingly. The learned District Judge, Mianwali, however, on appeal reversed the findings of the learned trial Court who incurred doubts about the genuineness of the plea of the petitioner as to passing of orders by the Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer. It was observed that "The possibility cannot be ruled out that this letter was subsequently imported in the file of the office of S.E. With the collusion of the Office Superintendent as the same is neither signed nor shown to have been issued by the S.E. The entire claim of the respondent to absolve his liability of payment of dues of WAPDA was based on this letter". The copy of Exh.P.1 which is an application made by the petitioner to the Superintending Engineer, Sargodha Division dated 5-12-1989 shows that it bears a handwritten order which had been relied upon by the petitioner. Similarly Exh.P.2 is a letter on the official letterhead of WAPDA by Superintending Engineer, Sargodha Circle (E), WAPDA to the Executive Engineer, Electricity WAPDA Division, Mianwali, which makes reference to the application made by the petitioner for disconnection purpose. Prima facie the noting and the contents of these documents/ orders do not leave any scope for doubt as to their authenticity. The learned appellate Court however proceeded to rule out the same on mere conjectures and assumptions that the same might have been introduced or smuggled into the official files later on. In order to prove that no order of disconnection had ever been made by any of the officials of the respondents the official who purported to have signed could have been produced in Court to own or disown the orders and the signatures. This however was not done by the respondents. Since such a negative assertion could not be proved by the petitioner, the learned trial Court, on consideration of the evidence that came on the record was justified to accept the version of the petitioner. This is besides the fact that a demand for any alleged sum concerning the period of 1989 was being raised for the first time after about 10 years and if not considered as time- barred it clearly militated against the respondents qua the genuineness and bona fide of their claim. In such view of the matter when the judgment of the appellate Court proceeds on assumptions and conjectures the same is unsustainable, which is set aside.
4. As a result the revision petition is accepted with no order as to costs.