1. ' SARDAR ABDUL HAMEED KHAN, J.---This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge Mirpur dated 26-9-2005, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. ' Brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the present appellant has filed a suit for perpetual-cum-mandatory injunction against respondents-defendants, S.D.O Electricity Department and others, in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge Mirpur stating therein that he was a resident of Sector Ban Khurman situated in Mirpur. It is further stated that the petitioner was a fair consumer of electricity and was holding an Account No, 1203/BK. The plaintiff stated that he has been paying the electricity charges under rules against Account No, 1203/BK. It is further alleged that the electricity Meter is not working properly and the Department has installed a Test Meter, and the plaintiff also paying the electricity charges on the basis of Test Merter. It is also alleged that the Department issuing extra electricity bill, which is illegal. The petitioner/plaintiff stated that he approached the defendants to stop issuing extra electricity bill, but they refused to do so. The plaintiff prayed that a decree for permanent injunction may be passed in his favour and against the defendants.
3. ' After hearing the parties, the learned Senior Civil Judge Mirpur dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved form the said judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge Mirpur, the present appellant filed an appeal in the Court of learned Additional District Judge Mirpur, who also dismissed the same being not proved by the appellant, hence, this second appeal.
4. ' It is pertinent to mention here that during pendency of the appeal before this Court, the appellant Abdul Aziz Chaudhary, submitted an application to permit him to produce some documents as additional evidence and this request was allowed by this Court vide its order dated June 11, 2011.
5. Resultantly, the additional evidence requested for by the applicant/appellant was produced.
6. ' I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with care and caution. The appellant argued that it is a case of non-reading as well as misreading of evidence and documentary evidence was also not properly appreciated by both the Courts below. Moreover, the statement of the plaintiff was not cross-examined by the defendants to the extent of excess billing and for door locked period. Moreover, the additional evidence in which documents Exh.PAA, PAA/1 and PAA/2, the, appellant/plaintiff has proved, his case keeping in view the whole evidence produced by the plaintiff i,e, Farooq Javaid record keeper and Mohammad Iqbal record keeper of the department and the statement of the plaintiff is ample evidence to substantiate the averments made in the plaint and the prayer clause. The learned counsel vehemently contended that though this is a case of concurrent findings by both the Courts below but is a fit case for indulgence of this Court. It is further argued that the appeal merits acceptance on the point of misreading and non-reading as well as improper appreciation of the evidence. It is further emphasized that the additional evidence recorded in this Court and that the statement of this witness has not been cross-examined by the defendant. In these circumstances the appeal is competent to be accepted. The learned counsel relied upon the case-law titled as "Syed Lal Hussain Shah v. Lal Mohammad and 5 others" decided by the Supreme Court of AJ&K, reported as 2005 CLC 1076 and another case-law titled as "Sultan Mohammad v. Haji Khair Mohammad" decided by the Balochistan High Court reported as PLD 2008 Quetta 1, ' On the other hand, Raja Niaz Ahmed Khan Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants, argued that as the matter has been settled down between the parties and excess bills issued by the defendants and paid by the appellant have been settled down, thus, now appellant has no cause of action against the defendant. Therefore, the appeal merits rejection.
7. ' The record reveals that by order of this Court dated 11-6-2011, additional evidence was allowed to the appellant and on 22-2-2013 statement of the record keeper, Mohammad Iqbal, has been recorded and the same is a part of the file of this Court. A copy of correction of the electricity bill in respect of the appellant dated 2-8-2011 has also been placed on the file by the said witness who is the record keeper of the Electricity Department (respondents). A letter has been issued by respondent No,2 wherein, it is mentioned that the committee constituted by respondent No,3 for settlement of the disputes of electricity bills probe into the case of the appellant with regard to excess bills and committee has recommended to refund/adjust the excess bills amounting to Rs,36,946. In the light of recommendations of the said committee, the defendant/respondent No, 3 wrote a letter and issued direction to respondent No,2 for adjustment of an amount of Rs, 36,946 earlier paid by the appellant and to issue an exact bill according to consumption. It is also directed that a legal action against the concerned Meter reader may kindly be taken. Thus, without going into details of the case according to the prayer made by the appellant in his plaint as well as statement of the record keeper Mohammad Iqbal which has been recorded by this court as additional evidence. It is an admitted fact that the respondents have issued excess bill to the appellant/plaintiff whereas they are not authorized under law to issue such average or excess bill.
8. Moreover, this is a fit case of concurrent findings which merits interference by this Court in the circumstances of the case.
9. ' In view of above, by accepting the appeal of the appellant the judgment and order of the learned District Judge, Mirpur dated 26-92005 and that of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mirpur dated 30- 112004 are hereby set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the respondents/defendants in the following terms with costs:--
(1) The defendants/respondents are ordered to refrain from disconnecting the electricity connection of Account No,1203 BK in the name of the plaintiff, Ch. Abdul Aziz, Advocate.
(2) The defendants are also directed to issue the electricity bill according to the actual consumption/meter reading after deducting the excess amount paid by the plaintiff to the defendants/respondents.