' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The appellant admittedly was the consumer of the electricity, supplied by the WAPDA and was served with a detection bill amounting to Rs.1,28,331.66; besides, the appellant was also booked in a criminal case on account of alleged theft of the energy. The appellant under the protest paid the bill and faced the trial on the criminal side but was acquitted by the Court of appeal vide judgment dated 18-11-1982.
2. On 2-9-1984, the appellant brought a composite suit, comprising of two parts; in one claiming damages to the tune of Rs.85,00,000 on account of cause of action based upon malicious prosecution, nonfeasance, mal-feasance, misfeasance and defamation and the other for the recovery of Rs.1,28,331.66 paid by the appellant under protest on account of the illegal demand of the respondents. The matter was contested by the respondents; issues were framed; parties were put to trial and the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21-5-1996, had allowed the suit to the extent of only Rs.5,00,000 as damages for the malicious prosecution, etc. And also for the return/refund of Rs.1,28,331.66, being the amount of detection bill, which was paid by the appellant under protest, whereas dismissed the suit, to the extent of remaining claim. Against this judgment and decree, no cross appeal or cross objection has been filed by the respondents. However, the appellant/ plaintiff feeling aggrieved for the less amount awarded, preferred this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant's reputation and good will was seriously hampered and damaged, because of the registration of the false case, which is clearly proved on the record, resultantly, the amount of damages should have been far more than the one awarded by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that the Court below, while passing the decree of Rs.1,28,331.66, has failed to award the interest to the appellant under section 34, C . P. C .
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. As far as the submission of learned counsel for the respondents, verbally challenging the finding of the trial Court on the relevant issues is concerned, suffice it to say that if such challenge is permitted, that may result into either the dismissal or the modification of the decree. But because of the law laid in the case reported as Khairati and others v. Allemud-Din and others (PLD 1973 SC 295), without there being a cross- appeal or objection, this is impermissible. Respondents therefore, can only defend that part of the decree, which claim has not been allowed to the appellant, whereas, they are precluded under the law to challenge the decree, which has been awarded to the appellant.
5. Now attending to the arguments of Kh. Haris Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant, who has submitted that the Court below while considering the claim of the appellant for damages, has not appreciated the evidence on the record. When questioned, learned counsel has not been able to show any misreading and non-reading of the evidence, rather from the reasoning given by the learned trial Court, it transpires that damages have obviously been awarded on the basis of the finding that action of the respondents in disconnecting the electricity supply and levelling allegation of theft and getting the case registered was illegal and mala fide, therefore, the Court has rightly granted the damages to the extent of Rs.5.00,000. Otherwise, the appellant under each head, i.e. For illegal trespass, wrongful disconnection, for non-feasance, misfeasance and defamation have not been able to prove the exact amount of the damages, he has suffered and the criteria which should have been followed by the Court in awarding the damages under different heads, resultantly, we do not find any illegality in the order.
As far as the question that the Court in its equitable jurisdiction should have awarded the interest, suffice it to say that the specific amount of damages, to the tune of Rs.5,00,000 has been granted to the appellant, obviously the equity did not warrant for the grant of interest on the amount of Rs.1,28,331.66, resultantly, we do not find any error and illegality in the impugned judgment and decree, calling for interference in the appeal. This appeal thus has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.