1. FAISAL ARAB, J.--- Today both the counsel unanimously agreed that suit may be disposed of only upon examination of documents produced in evidence as Exhs.4/16, 4/18, 4/19 and 4/20. Exh.4/16 in the judgment passed in C.P. No,D-517 of 1982 by Mr. Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid and Justice Ali Nawaz Budhani as they then were, where Division Bench has made the following observations:--- "This is neither a case of admitted demand nor recovery of bills made and sent in the normal course on the basis of readings of a meter. This is a case covered by section 26 of the Act and referable under section 26(6) to the Electric Inspector for his decision and until the amount had been determined by the Electric Inspector under section 26(6), the amount claimed by the K.E.S.C.
2. And disputed by the petitioner could not have been recovered as appears of Land Revenue through Assistant Commissioner, East, Karachi under section 54-A of the Electricity Act 1910.
3. As a result the notice, dated 16-1-1982 of the Assistant Commissioner, East, Karachi is declared to have been issued without lawful authority and to be of no legal effect. Mr. Khalid Anwar, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that within two weeks from today the petitioner will made an application to the concerned Electric Inspector for determination of the amount due from the petitioner company and before making such an application the petitioner will give seven days notice of the petitioner's intention of filing the application under section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910. It is further stated by Mr. Khalid Anwar that to express their bona fides, amount of Rs,1,00,000 will be paid on account to the K.E.S.C. Along with seven days' notice referred to earlier. This undertaking is taken on record.
4. There will be no order as to costs.
5. (Sd.)
6. Nasir Aslam Zahid, Judge (Sd.)
7. Ali Nawaz Budhani, Judge Pursuant to said judgment which is Exh.4/16 the defendants has produced Exh.4/18, dated 29-2- 1984 and decision of the Electric Inspector, dated 13-6-1984 produced as Exh.4/19. In paragraph 2 of the decision Electric Inspector has quoted as follows:--- "The counsel for the applicants appeared and produced all the relevant record and copies of the Electricity Bill, whereas the counsel for the respondents appears, but were not prepared to defend the case. The applicants informed that they were paying the electricity bills to the respondents regularly from the very inception, when factory started, in December, 1974...."
8. "Therefore the demand of the respondents for Rs,35,11,277 against the applicants has no locus standi in the eyes of justice, and is liable to be withdrawn. However the applicants have to pay Rs,308893 to the respondents. The electric connection of the applicants should be restored only when they have cleared their amount within Ninety days of this decision.
9. The claim of the applicants regarding excessive charging of maximum demand/fixed charges can be settled by admitting fresh application and after physical inspection of the connection load at site."
10. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that pursuant to the decision of the Electric Inspector they have made payment through pay-order, dated 17-12-1987. Counsel for the plaintiff states that this pay-order appears to be of 17-12-1983. Counsel for the defendant states that this pay-order is in fact of 17-12-1987 and contains the exact amount which was determined by the Electric Inspector vide his decision. It is an admitted position that no further proceeding after the decision of the Electric Inspector was taken by the plaintiff and without contesting before Electric Inspector, pressed the present suit, which was filed prior to the decision of Electric Inspector. In view of the fact that the Division Bench of this Court has specifically referred the matter to the Electric Inspector for decision and the decision has been given and, as claimed by the defendant payment pursuant to the decision, have also been made, the present suit has become infructuous. However this will not prejudice right of the plaintiff to question its claim that the pay-order which has been filed as Exh.4/20 is, dated 17-12-1983. Apparently pay-order is of 1987 as it contains exactly the same amount which was determined by the Electric Inspector. The present suit has become infructuous and is dismissed as such with no order as to costs.