' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.-- This appeal with leave of the Court is directed against judgment, dated 18-2-2000 of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench dismissing appellants' appeal against judgment of senior Civil Judge, Mansehra decreeing a suit for recovery of Rs,7,57,105 filed bythe respondent.
2. Facts of the case precisely appear to be that respondent secured a contract from the appellant- Municipal Committee for recovery of current and outstanding dues of water charges for a sum of Rs,16,00,000. At the time of entering into contract, appellant-Municipal Committee had shown arrears of Rs,7,57,105 against 306 defaulter water connections. Respondent, after award of the contract against his highest bid, made hectic efforts to recover the arrears of water charges from 306 consumers but he failed to do so. He approached the appellants for compensation to the extent of Rs,7,57,105 but the appellants instead of acceding to his request for entire claim, only allowed adjustment to the tune of Rs,1,59,390 with the intervention of Provincial Minister for Local Government N.-W.F.P. Which were the arrears of water charges for the current year only. His request for payment of the balance amount of arrears was declined; therefore, he was constrained to file a suit for recovery, as aforesaid. The suit was contested by the appellants, who filed a written statement controverting their liability to account for the amount of water charges due and payable on account of 306 defaulting consumers. On the pleadings of the parties as many as 9 issues were framed:
3. Both the parties adduced evidence. Upon conclusion of the trial, learned trial Court through its judgment dated 17-6-1998 decreed the suit of the respondent as prayed. Appellants preferred regular first appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed vide judgment, dated 18-2-2000, leading to a petition for leave to appeal, in which leave was granted by this Court, inter alia, to examine as to whether the claim of the respondent for recovery of the suit amount is valid and lawful because he had already been compensated by the Minister for Local Government in respect of unidentified water connections.
4. We have heard Syed Sajjad Hussain Shah, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the appellants and Mr. Abdur Rashid Awan, learned Advocate Supreme Court who entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. With their assistance, we have examined the relevant record as well as the impugned judgment of the High Court. Contract document between the parties is dated 28-6-1993 which pertains to the period 1993-94. According to paragraph 18 of the agreement respondent was, inter alia, entitled to recover water charges as per the particulars of consumers of water recorded in the Register of Municipal Committee, Mansehra. These particulars would include arrears for the current year as well as the preceding years, which shall be recoverable by the respondent-contractor. However, if he was unable to recover the arrears upto 30-6-1994, he shall have no claim over the uncovered arrears.
5. It is the case of the appellants that after the award of compensation/concession to the tune of Rs,1,59,390 with the sanction of the Provincial Government ordered by the Minister for Local Government, appellants were not bound to compensate the respondent for unrecovered amount from untraceable consumers. Stance of the appellants before the High Court appears to be that having accepted this amount by way of compensation, without any protest, respondent was in law estopped from filing the instant suit. In fact, the trial Court as well as the High Court accepted the claim of the respondent on the premise that officials of the appellant-Municipal Committee, in order to procure higher amount of contract, had fraudulently shown a sum of Rs,7,57,105 as arrears in their books on account of untraceable water connections charges. It was concluded that had the appellants not shown this amount in their books, perhaps, the respondent would not have offered the highest bid of Rs,16,00,000 for procuring the contract.
6. Even otherwise, appellants' witness P.W.1 Muhammad Younus, Tax Officer had admitted before the trial Court that a sum of Rs,7,57,105 was due and payable (by the appellant). This unequivocal and candid admission by appellants' official witness persuaded the trial Court to decree the suit as legally speaking respondent was not legally stopped from suing the appellants for redress of his grievance and recovery of the compensation amount claimed by him. Reliance of the appellants on A.R. Khan v. P.N. Boga PLD 1987 SC 107, in the leave grant order is completely out of place, misconceived and hardly attracted in the circumstances of the case. On an overall examination of the record and scrutiny of the impugned judgment, we are of the considered view that impugned judgment does not suffer from any material infirmity, illegality or error of jurisdiction warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
7. Resultantly, we find no merit in this appeal, which must fail and is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.