' CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, J.---Brief facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration expressing that he was regular consumer of the petitioners/defendants, Who used to check the meter installed at his residence regularly which was found to be sealed and stamped regularly by the petitioners/defendants, that the respondent had been paying electricity bill regularly, that in the month of June 2000 the petitioners/defendants issued a bill of Rs,325,707 out of which Rs,158,283 were extra beyond reading on the meter and the respondent/plaintiff claimed that the petitioners/defendants were not entitled to receive the extra amount. The said suit was contested by the petitioners/defendants by filing written statement before the learned trial court and it was submitted that the respondent/plaintiff had been filing various suits against the department and the amount mentioned in the present suit was mentioned in the bill of June, 2000 as it had been included on account of slowness of meter.
2. The learned trial court framed the issues, recorded evidence of the parties and appreciating the evidence of the parties decreed the suit filed by the respondent/ plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 20-10-2004. The petitioners filed an appeal before the learned lower appellate court which has also been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16-1-2006. Feeling dissatisfied the petitioners have filed the instant civil revision to assail the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that in the cases of theft of electricity against a consumer relating to metering equipment, when detection bill is issued, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is exclusively barred under section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 and only an Electric Inspector for possessing special expertise in examining working of metering equipment and other related apparatus had jurisdiction to entertain reference under section 26(6) of the Electricity Act 1910, but both the courts below while overlooking the said aspect of the case had not only entertained the suit in hand, but also decreed the same beyond the scope of their jurisdiction and the appeal was also dismissed without seeing the case from such angle. He has relied upon the judgment reported as Water and Power Development Authority and others v. Messrs Kamal Food (Pvt.) Ltd Okara and others (PLD 2012 SC 371) to support his contention. While responding to a query that whether the said objection was raised before the trial court, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that any legal objection to the extent of jurisdiction of the Court can be raised for the first time even while appearing before the highest Court of country. He has placed his reliance upon the judgment reported as Executive District Officer Schools and Literacy, District Dir Lower and others v. Qamar Dost Khan and others (2006 SCM R 1630).
4. The instant revision came up for hearing before this Court on 2-5-2006 when notice was issued to the respondent/plaintiff and his learned counsel put in his appearance before this Court on 8-1- 2007 when C.M.No,1-C of 2006 was considered by this Court. On the last date of hearing i,e,11-8-2014 none appeared on behalf of the respqndent, but in the interest of justice the office of this Court was directed to relist the case for today and today again none has appeared on behalf of the respondent without any intimation in spite of that name of learned counsel for the respondent (Mian Muhammad Rafique, Advocate) is duly reflected in the cause list, therefore the respondents is proceeded against ex parte.
5. Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners heard and record perused.
6. From the perusal of the pleadings of the parties it is found that the detection bill had been issued to the respondent on the charge of slowness of meter and according to the dictum laid down in the case-law Water and Power Development Authority and others v. Messrs Kamal Food A (Pvt.)
Ltd. Okara and others (PLD 2012 SC 371) in regard to the allegation of theft of electricity against the consumer related to the metering equipment. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. For ready reference para-12 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
(12) In Appeals Nos. 1514 and 1515 of 2006 arising out of the same metering equipment at the premises of the respondent, the allegation of theft by the appellant related to the metering equipment. The respondent/consumer had questioned the detection bill in a civil suit and interestingly the appellant (licensee) had raised objection to the jurisdiction of the civil court before the High Court on the ground that since the matter related to the correctness or otherwise of the metering equipment, the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Electric Inspector.
In view of our above discussion, such objection is sustained and we hold that the civil court had no jurisdiction in the matter.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly pointed out that both the learned courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decrees have omitted to take into consideration the said aspect of the case. It has been declared in the judgment reported as Executive District Officer Schools and Literacy, District Dir Lower and others v. Qamar Dost Khan (2006 SCM R 1630) that question of limitation goes to the root of case and can be raised for the first time even while appearing before the highest court of country. The respondent/plaintiff has been proceeded ex parte.
8. It is well settled principle now that a question of jurisdiction being a question of law could always be raised by any party at any stage of proceeding, even Court itself is required before proceeding with the case, to examine whether it has-jurisdiction in law to proceed or not. Merely because a party to the proceedings has not raised any objection to the jurisdiction out of ignorance or for want of proper advice, shall neither debar a party from raising such objection at the later part of proceeding even before higher forum nor the silence of the party nor even waiver shall confer the jurisdiction on a court not vested in law. Question of jurisdiction goes to the roots of the case and renders the entire proceedings coram non judice thereby vitiating the entire proceedings and making the judgment illegal and void. As question regarding its jurisdiction has to be firstly decided by the same Court, it is felt appropriate to remand the main suit to the learned trial court without touching upon merits of the case lest it may not prejudice the case of either party.
9. Consequently, the instant civil revision is allowed, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are set aside and the suit will be deemed to be pending before the learned trial court, who will decide the. Suit afresh after taking into consideration the objection of jurisdiction raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners while seeking guidance from above referred esteemed judgments.
10. The petitioners will approach the learned District Judge, Faisalabad on 8-9-2014 who will entrust the file of the suit titled as Khalid Pervaiz v. Wapda and others to a court of competent jurisdiction and the said court after issuing notice and procuring the attendance of the respondent/plaintiff will decide the same in. The light of observation and direction made in this judgment.