' This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.6.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Rahim Yar Khan through which he decreed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction of the respondent titled as "Muhammad Irfan us. WAPDA etc.". The said judgment and decree was assailed by the petitioners by filing appeal which was also dismissed as barred by limitation.
2. Precisely, facts for disposal of the instant revision petition are that respondent/plaintiff obtained electricity connection under Reference No, 5623-14668601R/D2(1)T from the petitioners/ defendants and the demand notice was issued to respondent which he deposited the amount, thereafter, connection was installed. The Petitioner/Defendant No, 3 has issued a Notice No, 4480 dated 2.4.2007 along with revised demand notice asking the respondent to pay Rs,1,22,380/- otherwise his connection will be disconnected. The respondent through suit for declaration has challenged the vires of this demand notice and contended that it is issued without hearing him and same is against the law and facts and ineffective on his right. The respondent also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner to recover disputed amount from him or to disconnect his electricity connection.
3. The suit was resisted by the petitioners/defendants by filing written statement in which petitioners/defendants have controverted the claim of respondent/plaintiff and alleged that revised demand notice was issued in the light of Letter No, 132-95 dated 11.3.2006 issued by the Director General, Commercial, WAPDA and Letter No, 7941 dated 29.7.2006 issued by the Chief Executive, MEPCO, Multan. As per law petitioners/defendants can issue revise demand notice and plaintiff/respondent is bound to pay the same.
4. Out of the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following issues:--
1. Whether revised demand Notice No, 999 dated 2.4.2007 issued by the defendants to the plaintiff is against law and facts, ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiff and liable to be cancelled? OPP.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the decree for declaration along with permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD
4. Whether suit is false, frivolous and liable to be dismissed with costs? OPD.
5. Relief.
' In support of their contentions, both the parties have produced their evidence. From plaintiff/respondent side, in oral evidence Muhammad Irfan plaintiff/respondent has himself appeared as PW-1 and in documentary evidence he tendered original demand Notice No, 715 (Ex- P/1), demand Notice No, 4480 dated 2.4.2007 (Ex- P/2), original demand Notice No, 999 dated 2.4.2007 (Ex- P/3) and bill of electricity (Ex-P/4). In rebuttal, Muhammad Jamil, Line Superintendent appeared as DW-1 and produced authority letter Ex-D/1 and Letter No; 7132-45 Ex-D/2 in documentary evidence.
5. After recording evidence and hearing the parties learned trial Court decided Issues No, 1 and 2 in favor of the plaintiff/ respondent and Issues No, 3 and 4 against the petitioner/defendant. By this way, learned Civil Judge decreed the suit of plaintiff vide impugned judgment and decree dated 26.6.2010. The petitioners/ defendants have filed appeal before the learned Additional District Judge which was also dismissed by barred by limitation vides judgment and decree dated 14.7.2011.
6. Being aggrieved by both the above impugned judgments and decrees the petitioners/defendants have filed the instant revision petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants argued that both the Courts below ignored the statement of DW-1 in which he referred order dated 11.3.2008 passed in Writ Petition No, 5479/07- Multan which was similar case decided in favor of WAPDA. Both the Courts below have not given any importance to it. The appeal can be filed due to summer vacation within 30-days and immediately reopening the Courts, appeal has been filed which is well in time but appellate Court has committed material irregularity and illegality while deciding the appeal as barred by limitation.
Both the judgments and decrees are based on misreading and non-reading of evidence which are liable to be set aside.
8. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent pleaded that learned trial Courts have passed the impugned judgments and decrees while taking into consideration the evidence available on record and no misreading and non-reading accrued and the impugned judgments and decrees do not require any interference by this Court. The Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation.
9. Arguments heard. Record perused.
10. The appeal filed by the petitioners/respondents was dismissed as barred by limitation; therefore, I have taken the first argument of learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants with regard to limitation and to resolve the controversy, it is necessary to reproduce the provisions of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which reads as under:
4. Where Court is closed when period expires.--Where the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the Court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted preferred or made on the day that the Court re-opens."
' From the plain reading of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1908 it becomes abundantly clear that the period during which the Court remains close on account of vacation, has to be excluded for the computation of limitation but the facts and circumstances of the present case are quite different.
The record shows that the impugned judgment and decree of learned Civil Judge was passed on 26.6.2010. The petitioners applied for the copy of the same on 26.6.2010. The copy was prepared on 8.7.2010 and was delivered to the petitioners on 10.7.2010. The petitioners can file appeal within 30- days from the date i,e, 10.7.2010 whereas admittedly the appeal was filed on 1.9.2010 i,e, after period of limitation. No separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,. 1908 has been filed by the petitioners/defendants for condonation of delay whereas only one sentence is written in the appeal that appeal filed within time due to summer vacation. It is admitted fact that even during summer vacation, district Courts remained open and District Judges as well as Additional District I Judges avail Special Casual Leave turn by turn and the Courts do not close. So the plea, that the appeal could be filed within time due to summer vacation has no merits. In. This regard, reference may be made to the case law reported as "Lehar Khan and others 'vs. Amir Hamza and others"
(1999 SCMR 108). It is an established law that delay of each and every day has to be explained as on account of limitation certain valuable rights accrue in favor of the other party. Reliance is also placed on the case law reported as "WAPDA through its Chairman and 4 others vs. Karam Din"
(2005 YLR Lahore 341). As far as second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that learned trial Courts have ignored order slated 11.3.2008 passed by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in other writ petition is concerned, said order has not been produced in evidence from the petitioners side. Even the order in writ petition referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants has not reported in Law Digest. Each and every case is to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. Reliance may be placed upon "Liaqat Ali vs. Additional District Judge, Lahore and 3 others" (PLJ 2000 Lahore 1551).
11. Both the Courts below have passed the impugned judgment and decree after appreciating evidence and law on the subject. None of quoted provisions of Section 115, CPC have been violated by the Courts below. Resultantly, for what has been discussed above, this civil revision being devoid of merit is dismissed.