' Ch. Muhammad Masood Jahangir, J.--The admitted facts of the case are that the respondents being public functionaries were consumers of energy supply, who instituted a declaratory suit against the petitioners while challenging the vires of utility bill for the month of May, 2004 with the averments that the same contained extra units and prayed for its cancellation/rectification. The said suit was resisted by the petitioners with the stance that on the surprise checking, the equipment/meter was found to be defective while reflecting slowness of 30%. The learned trial Court after completing the trial and appreciating the material available on the file, decreed the suit through judgment and decree dated 14.4.2007, which was also maintained when the learned lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners vide impugned judgment and decree dated 2.11.2007, which have been assailed by filing the instant civil revision.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. Admittedly, the consumer of the energy supply/respondents is a public department and it cannot be believed that for ulterior motive, the equipment/meter could be tampered by its functionaries for saving the payment to be made out of the allocated budget for the consumed units. The equipment/meter could be defective due to its life as well as weather or its mechanism.
No iota of evidence is available on suit file to believe that the meter was damaged by the respondents for any ulterior motive. The meter might have gone slow when the same was checked, but case history of the equipment reflects that prior to issuance of disputed bill neither any complaint qua the meter was made nor any notice was ever served upon any official of the respondents. Even otherwise, there is no evidence that defective meter was sent to the concerned laboratory and same was examined in presence of respondents or any agent authorized by them.
Moreover, no doubt, report regarding its slowness is available on the suit file, but maker of the same was not got examined by the petitioners and contents of the same could not be proved as per law. In such facts and circumstances, the Courts below were quite justified to decree the suit through the impugned judgments and decrees.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments and decrees or that these are reflective of any misreading and non-reading of evidence. The concurrent findings of fact on the face of record have been eminently arrived at by both the learned Courts below. The scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction by this Court is restricted and narrower, which is only meant for correcting errors of facts and law, if are found to have been committed by the subordinate Courts in the discharge of their judicial functions. Safe reliance can be placed on the judgments passed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "Aurangzeb through L.Rs, and others vs. Muhammad Jaffar and another" (2007 SCM R 236) and "Bashir Ahmed vs. Ghulam Rasool" (2011 SCM R 762).
5. Sequel of the above discussion is that the instant civil revision is devoid of any merit and force, which is hereby dismissed.