' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---The respondents applied for domestic electric connection, which was provided by the petitioners after observing all the departmental formalities under reference No,11878006U and respondent's premises was energized by installing electric meter. The petitioners, subsequently disconnected the electric connection. The respondent filed the suit for declaration challenging petitioners' action of disconnecting the electricity and his suit was decreed ex parte, vide judgment and decree dated 22-3-2003. The petitioners preferred an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. For setting aside the ex parte decree, which was resisted by the respondent. The learned trial Court framed the issued, recorded the evidence of the parties and in the ultimate analysis, accepted the said application, set aside the ex parte decree dated 22-3-2003 and also directed the petitioners to restore the electric connection of the respondent till the final decision of the suit, vide composite order dated 26-10-2004. Petitioners, being dis-satisfied with the latter portion of the said order i.e, direction regarding restoration of electric connection, filed the appeal challenging that portion of order dated 26-10-2004, but the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal, vide impugned judgment dated 13-1-2005, hence the present revision petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondent got the electric connection in un-electrified area of Talha Town, Okara and therefore, the petitioners legally and validly disconnected the same. He has added that both the Courts have decided the matter in complete oblivion of the facts of the case and law on the subject. He has referred to Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division, Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Zaman Khan and others (1997 SCM R 1508), Water and Power Development Authority and 2 others v.
Muhammad Saeed (PLD 1992 SC 381), Qazi Inamul Haq v. Heavy Foundry and Forge Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd. And another (1989 SCM R 1855) and Umer Gul v. Malik Abdul Manan and others (PLD 1992 Peshawar 76). Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent states that the electric connection was provided by the petitioners themselves on the application of the respondent, the electric energy was supplied to the respondent under a meter installed by the petitioners, the respondent had been paying the electricity bill and no default was ever committed. He has added that both the Courts have rightly decided the matter.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and examined the available record. It is admitted fact that the respondent applied for electric connection for his house situated at Talha Town, Okara, which application was allowed by the depaftment and after the deposit of requisite amount, the meter was installed and electric energy was supplied to the house of the respondent. It is not the case of the petitioners that the respondent committed default in payment of monthly consumption bills rather their case is that the respondent got the connection from the petitioners in un-electrified area of Talha Town. If the house of the respondent is situated in un-electrified area as pleaded by the petitioners, then the petitioner should have taken note of this fact when respondent's application was under process with the department. If the electric connection could not be provided in unelectrified area, then the petitioners should have refused to accede to the request of the respondent from the very inception. The petitioners have admitted that they energized the premises of the respondent and installed the meter. The petitioners themselves supplied the electricity connection, received the amount of demand notice for supplying the electric energy and now they cannot fall back upon to say that the respondent obtained the electric connection in un- electrified area. The decisive steps were taken, electricity was supplied, bills were paid and now the petitioners cannot be permitted to say that B electric connection was illegally given. Thus I feel that the respondent has got a strong prima facie case and as the electricity connection was disconnected, therefore, he had already suffered a substantial and irreparable loss. The petitioners, through their action by not complying with the order of both the Courts, are aggravating the agony of the respondent, who appears to be living in the house without electricity. The balance of convenience lies, of course, in favour of the respondent.
4. I have examined the impugned order dated 26-10-2004 and find that the learned trial Court while setting aside the ex parte decree, inexercise of its discretion, had directed the petitioners to restore the' electricity connection of the respondent till the final disposal of the suit. The first appellate Court has also affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court. I find that both the impugned orders are legal, valid and are neither arbitrary nor fanciful. It has been held in Shahzada Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan and another (PLD 1970 SC 139) that the discretionary orders of subordinate Courts cannot be interfered with, unless found fanciful and arbitrary.
5. In view of the above, I find that both the Courts did not commit any illegality or material irregularity in exercise of their jurisdiction and thus I am not persuaded to exercise the revisional jurisdiction in the matter.
6. As regards the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there cannot be any cavil to the principles of law laid down by the superior Courts in the said cases, however, they are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case, thus are of no avail to the petitioners.
' In view of the above, the present petition is decided in the following manner:---
(i) Present petition stands dismissed.
(ii) XEN, WAPDA, Okara and SDO, Sub Division-I, Okara are directed to restore the electricity connection of respondent's premises within a period of 10 days from today.
(iii) If the electricity connection is restored within the said period, the learned trial Court shall decide respondent's suit within a period of six months from today.
(iv) In case, the said public functionaries choose not to restore the electricity supply within the specified period, the learned trial Court shall also initiate contempt proceedings against the said public functionaries and to adopt other legal measures in order to enforce the orders.
(v) No order as to costs.