1. SH. AZMAT SAEED, 1.---This Civil Revision is directed against the appellate judgment and decree dated 7-2-2006, whereby the appeal filed by petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 7- 5-2005 was dismissed. Facts in brief giving rise to this petition are that respondent Rana Rice Mills who was consumer of the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction to call in question two demand notices issued to the petitioner for payment of Rs.25,030 dated 28-6-2002 and 8-8-2002 for 1,56,401 respectively. Suit was resisted. Learned trial Court recorded the evidence of the parties on the issues framed. Vide judgment dated 7-5-2002 decreed the suit in favour of the respondent.
2. Being aggrieved petitioner filed an appeal which failed to find favour paid. Two Courts below have rightly and dismissed by the first appellate Court concluded that the petitioner has missed the vide judgment and decree impugned. Bus and the instant claim should have been raised in the earlier round of litigation.
3. Counsel for the parties heard. Matter pertaining to the claim of the Record perused. It appears from the-record petitioner against respondent in the facts that the respondent who was a seasonal and circumstances of the case have been consumer of the petitioner was served with concluded firstly through the judgments and a bill for Rs.80,533 which was challenged decrees of the Courts below and then by respondent in a civil suit. Said matter through subsequent order, petitioner is now was compromised and it was agreed estopped from raising any further claim. Between the parties that said amount shall Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable be paid in instalments by the respondent to identify any misreading and non-reading and thus the suit was disposed of in terms of evidence available on record. Concurrent of compromise. Apparently , some finding of the two Courts below are based instalments were paid and again dispute on proper application of judicial mind and' arose as to the payment of instalments, and proper evaluation of evidence. If at all any consequently petitioner removed the amount was allegedly due from the transformer. Respondent again approached respondent and not raised at the appropriate the trial Court complaining violation of time, petitioner should proceed against its terms of compromise by the petitioner.. Own employees for dereliction of duty Again the matter was settled and in addition rather than hounding the respondent at this to the instalments, petitioner was required stage. Petitioner cannot be allowed to take to pay Rs.43,798 for restoration of advantage of its incompetence. Plaintiff's connection. Subsequently, petitioner again served respondent with two For the foregoing facts and reasons disputed bills demanding further payments. I am not persuaded to interfere in the There is no dispute between the parties as matter and this petition being devoid of any to the payments of instalments or the merit stands dismissed accordingly. Subsequent amount of Rs.43,798 which appears to have been paid by respondent. .
4. Petitioner has now claimed further amount relying upon some internal directive