' This writ petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2009 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jhang whereby, appeal filed by Respondents No, 2 and 3 was allowed, the judgment and decree dated 7.7.2009 of the learned trial Court was set aside and their suit for declaration was decreed as prayed for.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that Respondents No, 2 and 3, after purchase of weaving factory from Respondents No, 4 to 9, became consumers of the disputed electricity connection and at that time, the same was disconnected, but subsequently, it was got restored by them after paying arrears amounting to Rs, 17,340/- and they started paying the monthly bill regularly for the energy consumed by them. Afterwards, the petitioners issued detection bill of Rs, 48850/-against Respondents No, 4 to 9, who assailed the same through institution of a declaratory suit styled as "Muhammad Ishaq vs. WAPDA, etc.", which remained fail and detection bill was ultimately paid in installments to the petitioners in pursuance of order passed by the learned District Judge, Jhang. In this view of the matter, there was left nothing on the part of premises or consumers of the utility, but in June, 2000, the petitioners again sent a detection bill of Rs, 55,135/- on the basis of an audit note No, 46 dated 05.07.1995 without issuance of any show-cause notice, which was assailed by Respondents No, 2 and 3 through institution of suit.
3. The learned trial Court after Collecting stock of evidence of the parties and appreciating the same, dismissed the suit of Respondents No, 2 and 3, whereas it was decreed in appeal by the Addl. District Judge through judgment and decree referred to above in para-1 ante, which is the subject matter before this Court.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. There was nothing available on record that prior to initiation of proceedings against Respondents No, 2 and 3 on the basis of audit report, either any show-cause notice was issued to them or they were. Joined in the said proceedings to justify the audit report. This Court in a case reported as Water and Power Development Authority, etc. v. Umaid Khan (1988 CLC 501) has already held that audit objection is neither binding on the consumer nor the consumer can be held responsible for the fault of the department as pointed out in the audit report and there is considerable force in the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the amount was added to their account without issuing any show-cause notice or affording them opportunity of hearing to declare them liable for the payment of the questioned amount. In this view of the matter, I am satisfied that the learned lower appellate Court was quite justified to decree the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs on the valid reasons.
6. There is yet another aspect of the case that the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.12.2009, at the most, was revisable against which the remedy was available under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, but the period of 90 days prescribed for the same having been already expired, even the petition for obtaining certified copy was moved on 18.3.204 which was supplied on 22.08.2011 and apparently to avoid the said lapse, the petitioner chose to file the instant constitutional petition on 26.09.2011. It is settled principle that in the presence/availability of the alternate appropriate remedy, the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked. This Court is cognizant of the fact that this writ petition can also be converted into revision petition, but that would be hit by the limitation, which cannot be condoned automatically Unless the delay of each and every day is specifically explained by moving an application in this behalf and the same is lacking in the instant case.
7. Resultantly, the instant writ petition being not maintainable as well as on merits is dismissed in limine.