' The synopsis of the case are that the Syed Muhammad Ali Shah, Respondent No,_ 1 brought a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction against the petitioners regarding the disputed utility connection to the effect that notice dated 16.8.2005 issued by Defendant No, 5 as well as the audit note prepared by Defendant No, 6 and the disputed bills being illegal and unwarranted were inoperative upon the rights of the plaintiff and also liable to be cancelled. The said suit was contested by the petitioners and after full-fledged trial the same was decreed while the appeals filed by the petitioners dismissed vide judgments and decrees dated 7.9.2011 and 5.7.2014 passed by the learned Courts below respectively.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. The Petitioner/Respondent No, 1 to prove his case produced Ehtasham-ul-Haq, SDC Senior Clerk FESCO as PW-1, Muhammad Aslam Commercial Assistant, Revenue office FESCO as PW-2, Ehsan All UDC, Sub-Division FESCO as PW-3 and Arshad Ali Litigation Clerk of FESCO as PW-4, who while deposing their statements admitted that no notice was given to the plaintiff before checking the meter. All said witnesses PW-1 to PW-4 produced by the Plaintiff/Respondent No, 1 are employees of petitioners/defendants/ department, who were not subjected to cross-examine by the petitioners and they deposed categorically in favor of the plaintiff/ Respondent No,
1. Under Section 20 of Electricity Act, alicency or any person duly authorized by the licensee may, at any reasonable time and on informing the occupier of his intention, enter the premises subject to the proviso of the section which makes it obligatory upon the petitioner that prior to taking any action in this regard and intimation/notice is the requirement of law. It is settled principle of law that if a portion of examination-in-chief of a witness is not challenged in the cross-examination by the opposite- party, that amounts to admission and the lapse on the part of the petitioners about non-cross- examining the PW-s has really damaged their case. The evidence produced by the petitioners/defendants also did not depict that any notice had been issued before conducting the proceedings against plaintiff/respondent. As the petitioners department without mandate of law proceeded against the Plaintiff/ Respondent Na. 1, both the learned Courts below rightly decreed the suit filed by him.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had failed to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgments or that these are reflective of any misreading and non-reading of evidence. The concurrent findings of the fact on face of record have been eminently arrived at by both the learned Courts below, which are not open to any exception by this Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction the scope whereof being narrower is only restricted to correct errors of facts and law found to have been committed by the subordinate Courts. Safe reliance can be placed on the judgments passed by august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "2007 SCM R 236" and "2011 SCM R 762".
5. Sequel of the above discussion is that the instant revision petition being devoid of any merit and force is dismissed in limine.