JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The respondents/plaintiffs have been served but none has appeared on their behalf despite service. They are, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.
2. Petitioners/defendants, namely, WAPD A and its functionaries impugn the concurrent decrees of the learned trial Court dated 24-9-1995 and of the learned appellate Court dated 28-9-2000 whereby a declaratory suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was decreed.
3. The facts of this case are simple. The respondents/plaintiffs sought a declaration to the effect that a detection bill issued by WAPDA for a sum of Rs.50,299 was illegal. The position evident from the record is that Nasir Ibrahim (respondent No.1/plaintiff) being a registered consumer was entitled to supply of electricity from WAPDA. He did not appear as a witness in the case.
Muhammad Tahir (respondent No.2/plaintiff) claimed that he had purchased the property in respect of which the disputed bill had been issued, from Nasir Ibrahim. He did not produce any sale-deed or other document showing the transfer of title to him. Furthermore, he did not bring on record any application filed by him with WAPDA for change of name.
4. On the other hand, the petitioners/defendants not only produced the detection bill (Exh.D.2) but also produced three S.D.Os. As witnesses who proved that the disputed bill had rightly been issued to the B registered consumer, namely, Nasir Ibrahim. Muhammad Haroon Rashid, S.D.O. Appeared as D.W.3. He testified that he had checked the meter and found the seals and postal orders pasted on the meter box, broken. He also testified that when the checking was done the plaintiff was present.
5. In the above circumstances, it is quite clear that the respondents/plaintiffs failed to discharge the onus of proof placed on them in respect of issues Nos.6 and 7. It was firstly incumbent upon Nasir Ibrahim, who was the registered consumer, to enter the witness-box and depose on oath that there was no tampering with the meter and secondly, that he had sold the property in which such meter was C installed, to the second respondent. Furthermore, as noted above, no document or conveyance, registered or otherwise, was produced to prove the bald assertion made by' respondent No.2 that he had purchased the aforesaid property from Nasir Ibrahim. In these circumstances the suit should have been dismissed even if the petitioners/defendants had not produced evidence in defence.
6. However, as discussed above, the petitioners did produce evidence to show that the meter installed at the premises in question had been tampered with. The calculations, on the basis of which the disputed bill of Rs.50,299 was based, have been reproduced in Exh.D.2.
7. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find that the learned Courts below exercised their jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. The impugned judgments and decrees are, therefore, not legally sustainable. The same are set aside. As a result, the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs stands dismissed.