1. MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J.---Instant appeal has been filed with averments, that the civil suit filed by respondent No,1 for declaration and direction, was decreed, without recording of any evidence oral or documentary, through judgment dated 31-12-2006 by Senior Civil Judge, Hub, while the appeal preferred by respondent No,1 was also dismissed by Additional District Judge, Hub, on point of limitation, through order dated 14-5-2007. Further, the order of appellate Court was set aside by this court, through order dated 8-8-2008, while the appeal was remanded for disposal afresh on merits. It is further contended, that the appellate court without considering merits of the case, again accepted the appeal through order dated 31-10-2008. It is further asserted, that contrary to law another decree was passed in the matter by. Additional District Judge, Lasbella at Hub, on 26-11-2008. The appellant preferred instant appeal on grounds, that the subsequent decree dated 26-11-2008 is bad in eyes of law, and resulted in grave miscarriage of justice, but the impugned order is also defective. It is their contention, that on basis of subsequent decree the respondent has filed application for execution of decree, which is contrary to law. The appellants have prayed that impugned judgment and subsequent decree be set aside, while suit be dismissed. Learned counsel for the parties are heard, while record is perused. Learned counsel for the appellant raised contention, that the appellate court on remand of the case failed to give decision on merits, in contravention of the directions made by this court, while remanding the matter. He further contended, that the appellate court failed to discuss the evidence, nor recorded the findings on each issue. It was his arguments, that the impugned order is contrary to the facts and material present on record, while the appellate court has failed to consider, that the declaration sought in the plaint, is not in accordance with law. He further stressed that the electricity charges are to be paid by the user in each case. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellant was to the effect, that the order and decree was contradictory in nature, and the addition made in subsequent decree sheet is altogether illegal, thus not sustainable under law. The learned counsel for the respondent did not address the court on the points relating to preparation of subsequent decree sheet, and the contradictions present in judgment and decree, as pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants. Rather the learned counsel for the respondent, restricted his arguments only to the extent of merits of the case. It was his contention that the outstanding dues have already been paid, and as the electricity was not supplied, therefore, there was no occasion for payment of minimum charges, further no notice was ever served on them, with demand of payment of dues. He relied on clause-XI of the lease agreement. The perusal of the record reveals, that the respondent/plaintiff i,e, Messrs Prism Printers (Pvt.) Ltd.
2. Filed a suit for declaration and direction with prayer that the plaintiff be declared as allottee with possession of the suit plot bearing No,A-88, measuring 1250 square meters in Hub Industrial Estate, thus entitled to receive No-Objection Certificate of no dues in respect of the plot. It is further prayed, that direction be issued for restoration of electricity of the plot in question. The further prayer is to the effect, that defendant No, l/appellant No,1 be directed to issue the required N.O.C. In their favour with immediate effect. Defendant No, 1/appellant in written statement objected on maintainability of the suit to the effect, that the suit is filed without any cause of action, and without locus standi, further, proper court fee has not been affixed. On merits, it was their plea, that the plaintiff being defaulter, as failed to pay the electricity charges to the tune of Rs,1020589, despite having knowledge of the same, is not entitled for issuance of No Objection Certificate of no dues as per terms and conditions of the. Agreement. Further, the plaintiff/ respondent is avoiding to make the payment of charges, as such not entitled to the relief as claimed in the suit. Though defendant No,2/appellant No,2 filed separate written statement, but raised same contention. The perusal of record further reveals, that the trial court framed issues on 11-7-2006, and called evidence. But no witness was produced by either of the parties, rather only representatives of the parties got recorded their statements. The plaintiff/respondent instead of producing evidence filed application for admission of documents, which was replied by the defendants/appellants, thereby admitting the mentioned documents with some exceptions. While in rebuttal no evidence was produced by the defendants/ appellants. On completion of trial, suit was decreed through judgment dated 30-12-2006. The appeal preferred by the present respondent was also dismissed through order dated 14-5-2007 by Additional District Judge, Hub, on point of Limitation. The order was challenged before this court, which was accepted through order dated 8-8-2008, and appeal was remanded for deciding it on merits. The learned appellate court on remand after hearing both the parties, accepted the appeal, through order dated 31-10-2008, which is presently impugned before this Court. Before touching merits of the case, the point which needs consideration at the first instance is preparation of two decree sheets. The appellants have annexed certified copies of decree sheets bearing dated 31-10-2008, and 26-11-2008. The perusal of both the decree sheets reveals that decree sheet prepared on 31-10-2008 is to the effect:-- "Today this appeal has come up for final disposal before me, Muhammad Ali Satakzai Addl: District and Sessions Judge Lasbella at Hub, in presence of Mr. Sami-uz-Zaman Advocate for appellant and Mr. Hafeez-ur-Rehman Advocate for respondents. The appeal filed by appellant is accepted with direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that N. O. C to appellant be issued as soon as possible without any delay as per law."
3. Given under my hand and seal of the court this 31st day of October, 2008." While decree sheet prepared on 26-11-2008 is to the effect:-- "Today this appeal has come up for final disposal before me, Muhammad Ali Satakzai Addl: District and Sessions Judge, Lasbella at Hub, in presence of Mr. Sami-uz-Zaman Advocate for appellant and Mr. Hafeez-ur-Rehman Advocate for respondents. The appeal is accepted with directions to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that N.O.C. To appellant be issued as soon as possible without any delay and electricity be installed as per law, Given under my hand and seal of the court this 26th day of November, 2008." The bare perusal of both the decree sheets reveals that in subsequent decree sheet addition of words "and electricity be installed" is made. While both of the decree sheets are prepared on two different dates. Term "decree" is defined in section 2, subsection (2), C.P.C, which states asunder:-- "2(2) "decree" means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regard the Court expressing it, conclusively determine the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint the determination of any question within section 144, and an order under Rules 60, 98, 99, 101 or 103 of Order XXI but shall not include:-- any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order; or
(b) any order of dismissal for default; While section' 33, C.P.C. Is to the effect that:-- "Judgment and decree. --The court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment, and on such judgment a decree shall follow. Further, Rules 6, 7 and 8 of Order XX, C.P.C. Describe the contents required to be contained by a decree i,e, the date on which it is to be prepared and signing of the decree by the judge concerned.
4. The Rules are reproduced hereunder;-- "Order-XX Rule-6. Contents of decree.---(1 )The decree shall agree with the judgment; it shall contain the number of the suit, the names and descriptions of the parties, and particulars of claim, and shall specify clearly the relief granted or other determination of the suit.
(2) The decree shall also state the amount of costs incurred in the suit, and by whom or out of what property and in what properties such costs are to be paid.
(3) The Court may direct that the costs payable to one party by the other shall be set-off against any sum which is admitted or found to be due from the former to the latter.
5. "Order-XX Rule-7. Date of decree.--The decree shall bear date the day on which the judgment was pronounced, and, when the judge has satisfied himself that the decree has been drawn up in accordance with the judgment, he shall sign the decree.
6. "Order-XX Rule-8. Procedure where Judge has vacated office before signing decree. --Where a judge has vacated office after pronouncing judgment but without signing the decree, a decree drawn up in accordance with such judgment may be signed by his successor or, if the Court has ceased to exist, by the judge of any Court to which such Court was subordinate."
7. Keeping in view the above mentioned Sections and Rules, the decree shall follow the judgment, while the decree not only contain number allotted to the suit, but complete names and description of the parties with particulars of the claim, and also relief specified clearly therein. Above all the decree shall agree with the judgment. While in the present case the trial court decreed the suit through judgment dated 30-12-2006, while decree followed in terms:-- "Today this suit has come up for final disposal before me, Nauroz Khan Hoth, Senior Civil Judge, Hub, in presence of Sakhi Gazali Advocate for plaintiff and Mr. Hafeez-ur-Rehman Advocate for defendants. The plaintiff is directed to approach M.D. LIEDA and submit application for restoration of electricity supply, besides M.D. LIEDA is required to take matter and make concession, co- operation to plaintiff, if there is exist any incentive by Government or any other leniency may be done in favour of plaintiff and matter be resoled within one month after that N. O. C be issued. To plaintiff as per law. The suit is decreed reason cited above. Given under my hand and seal of the court this 30th day of December, 2006." The appeal filed by the present respondent/ plaintiff, which was allowed through judgment dated 31-10-2008, in terms:-- "Appeal filed by appellant is accepted with directions respondents Nos.1 and 2 that N.O.C. To appellant be issued as soon as possible without any delay as per law." Thus the decree must be in terms of judgment as mentioned hereinabove. Therefore, the subsequent decree sheet is of no legal effect. This fact is further noted from perusal of original file of Civil Appeal No,7 of 2008, titled as Messrs Prism Printers (Pvt.) Limited v. Managing Director, Lasbella Industrial Estate Authority, Hub and Secretary Industries, Government of Balochistan, only one decree sheet is present in case file, and no subsequent decree sheet is present on record. As certified copy of subsequent decree sheet has been filed by the appellants along with memo of appeal, which bears stamp and signature of Reader to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, District Lasbella at Hub, therefore, the concerned District Judge, be directed to make probe into the matter, and submit report through Registrar of this court, for perusal in chamber. Keeping in view the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the subsequent decree sheet is of no legal value, thus no right can be claimed on basis of the same. The respondent/plaintiff in their suit sought declaration to the effect, that they being allottees with possession of the plot bearing No,A-88, measuring 1250 square meters, in Hub Industrial Estate, thus entitled to receive No Objection Certificate of no dues, with further prayer that electricity of the plot be restored, while direction be issued to the defendants/appellants to issue required NOC immediately. The fact of allotment, and possession is not denied by the defendants/appellants in reply to the suit, with plea that the plaintiff/respondent is defaulter, as an amount of Rs,1020589 is outstanding against the plaintiff, as electricity charges, and before issuance of required N.O.C. The dues are to be paid. It is to be noted that though the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed in their favour, but being unsatisfied with terms of decree, the appeal was preferred, which was accepted by the appellate court. The bare perusal of the impugned order reveals, that the appellate court neither discussed the material present on record, nor gave findings on the points raised in to appeal, rather simply noted down the facts with addition, that learned counsel for the respondent/present appellant totally denied the outstanding bill against the appellant/present respondent, and gave full consent for issuance of NOC without any delay. The learned appellate Judge only accepted the appeal as being convinced personally, that the appellant is legal purchaser of Plot No,A-88, therefore, the appeal is allowed, and respondents Nos.1 and 2/present appellants are directed to issue N.O.C. To the appellant/ present respondent without any delay as per law. The findings arrived by the appellate court are on no basis, as nothing has been discussed, nor the relevant law has been referred, on basis of which No Objection Certificate is to be issued.
8. The appellate court only based its findings on personal satisfaction, without discussing the material placed on record. In the circumstances, the decision arrived by the appellate court is not only erroneous, but also of no legal effect. In present case, it is an admitted fact that plot in question was purchased by the respondent in 1987, while possession of the same was also handed over to the respondent on 3-1-1988, and the lease agreement was also executed on same date, between the parties, and since then the respondent/ plaintiff is in possession of the same. It is also an admitted fact that till present the plot in question is being vacant with no construction thereon. The respondent, as per its own showings is aggrieved of only non-issuance of No Objection Certificate of no dues by the Authorities i,e, present appellants in its favour. In reply it is only contended by the appellants/defendants, that as respondent/ plaintiff has failed to pay the arrears of electricity charges, while an amount of Rs,1020589 is outstanding, therefore, respondent/plaintiff is not entitled for issuance of N.O.C. For no dues in his favour. It is also apparent from the plaint, that when the possession was handed over to the respondent/plaintiff electricity connection was available on the plot in question. Though it is asserted in the plaint that in December, 1990 due to breaking of wires the electricity was disconnected, which was not restored, thereafter, despite submitting of complaints, as such plaintiff/ respondent is not bound to pay the charges. The appellants/defendants denied the fact of disconnection of the electricity, rather only asserted non-payment of electricity charges. Keeping in view the pleadings of the parties, the matter in issue is liability of payment of electricity charges supplied to the plot in question, which is in possession of the respondent/plaintiff. It is also an admitted fact, that the electricity is supplied to the plot by the appellants. Thus in the circumstances, appellants are "Licensees" and the respondent/plaintiff is covered with the term "Consumer", as defined in section 2(c) and (h) of Electricity Act, 1910, which states as under: - "2. (c) "Consumer" means any person who is supplied with energy by a licensee, or whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of a supply of energy with the works of a licensee; "
9. "2. (h) "Licensee" means any person licensed under Part-II to supply energy; "
10. Keeping in view the nature of the case, as there existed relationship of licensee and consumer between the parties, therefore, the dispute arising between them which is in respect of electricity dues, is to be referred to Electricity Inspector in accordance with the provisions of Electricity Act, 1910. As per respondent's own showings the electricity charges are duly paid by him, but it is further admitted that notice for disconnection was issued in respect of non-payment of dues, which was received by the plaintiff/respondent. The said notice was surely in terms of section 24 of Electricity Act, 1910, thus within the meaning of the provisions contained in the section, the dispute is to be referred to the Electricity Inspector, appointed under section 36 of the Electricity Act, 1910.
11. Furthermore, the Bills of electricity charges are issued as per Condition No,19 of Abridged Conditions of Supply attached to Electricity Rules, 1937. While condition No,25 of the Conditions provides the procedure for resolving of the disputes arising between the Department and the consumer. There is also a bar on jurisdiction of a Civil Court, as contained in section 54-C of Electricity Act, 1910. Thus keeping in view the above mentioned provisions of relevant law, and matter in issue, there is lack of jurisdiction on part of the trial court to the extent of determination of electricity charges, and liability of its payment. As the relief to the extent of issuance of No Objection Certificate of no dues, and restoration of electricity supply based on payment and clearance of the dues, therefore, the relief to this extent cannot be granted in the circumstances, until and unless matter is decided by the relevant Authority under provisions of relevant Law and Rules. The appellate court as well as trial Court completely failed to consider legal aspect of the case, thereby arrived to the decision, which is contrary to relevant law, thus not sustainable. In view of above discussion, present appeal is accepted. The judgment dated 31-10-2008 of Additional Sessions Judge, Lasbella at Hub, and judgment dated 30-12-2006 of Senior Civil Judge, Hub, are hereby set , aside. Resultantly, the suit filed by respondent/plaintiff is dismissed.
12. No orders as to costs.