JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.---The respondent filed a suit for declaration with permanent and mandatory injunction against the petitioners claiming that he is an Ex- Member of National Assembly and was residing temporarily near Satluj High School G.T Road Okara. He got sanctioned a telephone connection bearing No.522146? For his personal use. He was regularly paying his bills. He averred that his political rivals only to damage his reputation and status on the basis of forged and fictitious documents got sanctioned a Telephone Connection bearing No.621156 at Muslim -Town at the address of Muslim Town Renal Khurd Okara, where the respondent never resided. He further asserted that he never applied for any telephone connection and Telephone No.621156 was never sanctioned to him nor it remained in his house. The. Petitioner has wrongly issued a demand of Rs.1,15,192 the bill for Telephone No.621156. He prayed for declaration that Telephone No.621156 was not installed on his application nor he used the same, as such he is not liable to pay the amount of Rs.1,15,192 the alleged bill for the use of the telephone connection. The petitioners contested the suit and raised number of preliminary as well as factual objections. The petitioners denied all the assertions of respondent and claimed that telephone connection was installed on the written application of respondent and he is liable to pay the amount of Rs.1,15,192. Learned civil court out of pleadings of parties framed the following issues:-- "ISSUES.--
(1) Whether the suit is liable 'to be dismissed in view of preliminary objection Nos. 1 and 2 of the written statement? OPD
(2) Whether the suit has been instituted with mala fide intention hence the defendants are entitled to special costs under section 35-A of C.P.C.? If so, to what extent? OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiff, has not applied for Telephone Connection bearing No.621156 and the documents prepared in this context are fictitious and based upon mis representation? OPP
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaration and permanent/mandatory injunction as claimed for? OPP
(5) Relief.
2. The learned trial Court recorded evidence of both parties, both verbal as well as documentary and finally vide judgment and decree dated 28-9-2001 decreed the suit. The petitioners assailed the said judgment and decree through an appeal which too was dismissed, on 24-7-2002, hence the present petition.
3. The respondent was served and respondent counsel appeared of and on, today neither respondent nor his counsel is present, hence, he is proceeded against ex parte.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent was elected as -NINA from the constituency of Renala Khurd and during his membership of National Assembly, he obtained Telephone Connection No.621156 and continued to use the same but failed to pay the bill and a sum of Rs.1,15,192 become due and are recoverable from him, on non-payment of said bill his telephone connection was disconnected. He further submits that petitioners filed an application for additional evidence and also framing an additional issue which was dismissed by learned appellate Court without any cogent reason. He further submits that the record available was not allowed to be placed on record and as such the petitioners suffered irreparable loss. He further submits that respondent has not affixed Court fee ad valorem as the suit is basically for setting aside the demand of Rs. 1,15,192. He submits that both the courts below have mis-read and non- read the record and as such judgments of both courts below are liable to be set aside.
5. The sole point required for consideration for the disposal of suit was whether the respondent ever applied for installation of disputed telephone connection. The respondent appeared as witness but have not produced any document showing that any application was filed by the respondent for installation of telephone connection. How many telephone bills were issued to respondent and why telephone connection was not disconnected for non-payment of bill of one month or two months.
The petitioners why waited for disconnection of telephone connection when the bill was piled up to the extent of Rs.1,15,192. DW-1 Qasim Ali Accountant (Revenue) Telephone Department appeared. He has not placed any document on record showing that telephone connection was sanctioned to respondent on his application. In cross-examination lie admitted as under:-- 604' {{URDU TEXT}} It is amazing that petitioner being a Government Department maintaining the record of each and every telephone connection of his consumer has failed to place on record a single document showing that respondent ever applied for installation of telephone connection. It is not understandable that on a plain paper demand of Rs.1,15,192 was raised against the petitioner which is Exh.P1, the said demand is no doubt signed by Accounts Officer (Telephone) Okara but this demand finds not mentioned any detail- of bill payable for the months nor this demand shows the address on which the said demand was dispatched.
6. It is not understandable why the petitioner has not relied upon the documents establishing the fact that the telephone connection was installed at the residence of respondent on his request. It is also not understandable why petitioner has not disconnected telephone connection of respondent for non-payment of one or two months' default.
7. After passing the decree when the petitioner filed an application for additional evidence before learned Appellate Court, the said application also not finds mention which document respondent wants to place on record. The documents required to be produced in rebuttal of the claim of respondent were not relied upon, so learned appellate Court has rightly dismissed the application for additional evidence. As far as the objection of petitioner that court-fee was not paid on an amount sought to be set aside is concerned, learned trial Court as well learned Appellate Court has not properly attended the objection of petitioner. In fact this was a suit for setting aside amount of Rs.1,15,192 and as such ad valorem court-fee was payable. The said objection is sustainable. As petitioners have failed to rebut the stance of respondent and as such both learned courts below have rightly passed the decree against the petitioner on the basis of available record.
This revision petition partially allowed, the respondents are directed to pay court-fee ad valorem within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of order and in case the respondent failed to pay the court-fee, the suit will be deemed to be dismissed. Office is directed to send certified copy of order to the address of respondent under a sealed cover as his counsel was not present in the Court when learned counsel for the petitioner argued the case. There is no order as to costs..