' This civil revision under Section 115, CPC is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 09.05.2014 and 26.08.2015 whereby suit of the respondents for declaration alongwith permanent injunction was concurrently decreed.
2. Arguments heard. File perused.
3. The respondents filed a suit for declaration alongwith permanent injunction on 10.12.2011 claiming that demand of Rs, 39,927/- as charges for electricity consumed in the month of September 2011 be declared as illegal on the grounds that earlier to said bill, the charged amount was being regularly paid, and that the said demand was made on the basis of an audit report which was not confronted with the respondents and that no notice was issued prior to making such demand. In the written statement submitted by petitioners it was specifically stated in Paragraph No, 3 that his meter was 33% slow and vide audit Para No, 577 dated 11.08.2011 it has been found the responsibility of the respondents. However, the petitioners produced the letter dated 07.12.2009 recommending for the laboratory test of the meter and the letter dated 01.04.2010 demanding the bill for excessive 2148 unit was not exhibited. Even the audit Para 577 could not be exhibited for the best reason known to the petitioners.
3. Solely, on a particular portion of the audit the demand cannot be straightaway made to pay the charges of the consumed units particularly when the said report was not tendered in evidence in accordance with law. This being a non-judicial document cannot be read in evidence.
4. No issue of jurisdiction was framed by the learned trial Court and in the matters of excessive bill, the Civil Court has the jurisdiction. Reliance is placed upon MEPCO versus Muhammad Ashiq and others (PLD 2006 SC 328). Relevant extract is reproduced as under: "Thus, as the law declared stands today, in cases of theft of electricity or illegal abstraction of energy, the Electric Inspector has no jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute and it is only the Court of plenary jurisdiction who could resolve such a controversy".
5. In this view of the matter, this civil revision has been found meritless and is, therefore, dismissed in liming (R.A.) .