Facts relevant for the disppsal of instant civil revision are, that Taj Muhammad, plaintiff instituted suit against Chairman WAPDA, Lahore and others, defendants, for declaration to the effect that notice dated 29.1.1999 issued by Defendant No, 4, requiring the plaintiff to pay additional amount/fine entered in the Bill dated 8.5.1993, is unlawful and ineffective on the rights of the plaintiff and defendants are not justified to demand additional amount or disconnect electricity connection of the plaintiff. The defendants were approached time and again to redress the grievance of the plaintiff but they declined to do so, which led the plaintiff to file suit.
2. The suit was resisted on all grounds, legal as well as factual. In view of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:--
1. Whether the plaintiff has got a cause of action?
2. Whether the suit is incompetent?
3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to sue?
4. Whether M&T report is against plaintiff?
5. Whether this Court has got jurisdiction?
6. Whether plaintiff has been stealing the electricity and the disputed amount is justified?
7. Whether defendants can legally realize the disputed amount from the plaintiff?
8. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for?
9. Relief.
3. In the second round of litigation, learned Civil Judge/Illaqa Qazi, Malakand at Dargai, by his judgment and decree dated 29.10.2003, dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff has not been able to substantiate his claim. An appeal was preferred thereagainst, which did not succeed. The same was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Malakand at Batkhela, by his judgment dated 9.9.2004.
4. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, has filed instant revision petition under Section 115 CPC, to call in question the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below on variety of grounds.
5. I have heard at length Mr. Muhammad Asif, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Fida Gul, Advocate for respondents in the light of the material on file.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner bitterly criticized the impugned judgments and decrees of the forums below and attempted to argue that same are result of misreading and non-reading of the evidence on record; that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the point involved in the case in its true perspective; that the appellate Court has not decided the appeal issue-wise and thus has acted, illegally; that statements of witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents were full of serious discrepancies and contradictions regarding the disconnection of electric supply to the petitioner; that appellate Court has failed to appreciate the fact that petitioner had moved an application for withdrawal of the suit with permission to file a fresh one, which was seriously contested but after hearing the arguments, appeal has been decided without taking into consideration the application for withdrawal of the suit and that matter may be sent back to the Court below for decision afresh.
7. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner do not carry weight. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Court below are based on correct appreciation of the evidence and hardly call for interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The evidence produced by the petitioner is deficient and does not inspire confidence. On the contrary, sufficient material has been brought on the record by the respondents to rebut the claim of the petitioner. The mere assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the evidence led by the respondents suffers from contradictions and lacunas, without a positive attempt on his part to substantiate the same, is of no consequence. A perusal of the record would reveal that the electricity meter was installed at the residence of the petitioner in the year 1992. The petitioner has failed to make payment of arrears from January 1994 to May 2000. The conduct of the petitioner is clearly indicative of the fact that he is not in a fit mood to discharge his liability and pay arrears of electricity bills. The sole object of the petitioner appears to be, to prolong the litigation and avoid payment as long as possible.
In the circumstances, he cannot be allowed to withdraw suit with liberty to bring fresh suit.
8. The contention that appellate Court had failed to record judgment issue-wise and separately in terms of the requirements of order XX, Rule 5 CPC, and thus the case is fit for remand in terms of Order XLI, Rule 25 thereof, the submission is not tenable. Order XX, Rule 5 CPC is evidently applicable to the original Court, which hears a civil suit. As regards appellate Court, the requirement of recording finding issue-wise is not mandatory. It is sufficient for the appellate Court to deal with all the issues as are material for disposal of the controversy excepting those abandoned by the appellant. An appellate Court recording its findings on the points raised before it, without discussing the issues separately cannot be said to have committed any illegality or error as held by this Court in Naimat Khan and others, Petitioners vs. Hamzullah Khan and others respondents (2006 CLC 125).
9. The appellate and the revisional Court is always empowered to remand the case in terms of Order XLI, Rule 25 CPC, but this discretionary power is used only in exceptional situation and if the parties have led evidence with regard to the particular point and the Court of first instance by giving specific finding on the said point decided the same in the light of evidence available on record, the remand of the case in appeal or revision is not proper exercise of the jurisdiction.
Needless to emphasize that powers under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC are to be exercised only if the Court considers that it would not be able to pronounce judgment without further evidence, and this provision cannot be used for the benefit of a party which has not been vigilant enough to see that no weaknesses are left in its case. The power to order remand is no doubt wide, but it should be exercised only in those cases wherein omission of a party was accidental. A party cannot be allowed to adduce evidence to do away with the weakness that exists in its case. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled Ashiq Ali vs. Zamer Fatma PLD 2004 SC 10, has observed as under:-- "It is well settled by now that where the evidence on record is sufficient from the Court concerned to decide the matter itself, remand should not be ordered and moreso, a Court will not remand a case where the defect is due to the negligence and the default of the party desiring remand."
For what has been discussed above, finding no substance in this civil revision, I dismiss the same with no order as to costs.