This judgment shall dispose of Civil Revision No, 2185 of 2000 and Civil Revision No, 2186 of 2000, as common question of law and facts are involved.
2. This civil revision is directed against concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below in suit filed by the respondent for declaration along with permanent injunction against the petitioners to the effect that the meter reading be declared to be correct at the multiplying factor- 2 instead of 2.85 and similarly the MDI meter reading with the multiplying factor-20 be declared to be the true one, instead of 29.500 and that the impugned bill for the month of July, 1997 at the excessive rate due to the incorrect multiplying factor be declared as null and void. The petitioners contested suit. Controversy gave rise to framing of issues. Parties produced their respective evidence 'oral as well as documentary. The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgments and decree dated 28.07.1998. An appeal was preferred, which came up for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, who vide his judgment and decree dated 12.10.1999 dismissed the same. This civil revision calls in question both judgment and decrees passed by learned Courts below.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that judgments and decrees of both the Courts are without jurisdiction, in terms of Section 26(6) of Electricity Act, 1910, and thus, nullity in law. Relies on Messrs Narowal Flour Mills through Managing Director V. WAPDA through Chairman and 3 others (2006 M LD-Lahore 636).
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff argued that question of jurisdiction was neither raised in the written statement nor any evidence was laid and even arguments were not addressed on the question. Relies on Multan Electric Power Company Ltd. through Chief Executive and another v. Muhammad Ashiq and others (PLD 2006 SC 328).
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with their able assistance.
6. The plaintiff/respondents challenged demand of Bill Exh.P.2, raised on basis of Exh.D.1, recording slowness of meter. It squarely fall under Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910, conferring exclusive jurisdiction to an Electric Inspector. Reference can be had to Messrs Norwal Flour Mills through Managing Director V. WAPDA through Chairman and 3 others (2006 M LD Lahore 636) and a full bench judgment of this Court in Water and Power Development Authority and another v. Mian Muhammad Riaz and another (PLD 1995 Lahore 56). In Messrs Narowal Flour Mills' case (supra) it was observed in the following words:-- "Since the very jurisdiction of the Court did not extend to try such a lis, the assumption of jurisdiction, the trial of the suit and the judgments recorded by both the Courts stand on no better footing than without jurisdiction".
The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is not helpful to him, wherein it was held that the cases falling under Section 26(2) of Electricity Act, 1910 are cognizable by an Electric Inspector while those under Section 26-A are to be dealt with by a Court of plenary jurisdiction barring jurisdiction of an Electric Inspector and Advisory Board. Judgment of Full Bench of this Court in WAPDA and a another v. Mian Muhammad Riaz and another (PLD 1965 Lahore 56) was affirmed.
7. Non-raising of objection to the jurisdiction before the Court of first instance will not confer jurisdiction upon the Court. Relying an various decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in afore-noted case observed that jurisdiction is conferred by law and not by consent of the parties. It reiterated its observation recorded in Haji Abdullah Khan and others v. Nasir Muhammad Khan and others (PLD 1965 SC 690), reproduced below:-- "It may be noted that it is the duty of the Court itself to apply the law. A party is not bound to engage a counsel. Whatever law becomes applicable on the admitted or proved fact law has to be given effect to whether or not it has been relied upon by a party."
8. In view of bare reading of Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910, and the case law cited above, I am of the firm view that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction in the matter.
9. For what has been discussed above, these civil revisions are allowed, the impugned judgments and decrees of both the learned Courts below are set aside. The respondents, however may recourse to the remedy available to them under the law, if so advised.