1. ' Through this civil revision the petitioners have called in question the judgments and decrees dated 29.09.2010 passed by trial Court and that of appellate Court whereby suit filed by the respondent was decreed and appeal of the petitioners against the decision of trial Court was dismissed.
2. 2.Brief facts of the case are that a suit -was filed by the respondent against the petitioners seeking a desire for declaration and permanent injunction. It was stated that father of the respondent- plaintiff had obtained electricity connection for installation of tubewell under Reference No, 05- 1551-17585007-R. After death of father of the respondent the electric connection is being used by him. The bills were issued to the respondent with excessive amount, the respondent time and again requested the petitioners to rectify the fault and send bills according to actual consumption. In December, 2005, petitioners issued bill of Rs, 67,888/- , this was result of wrong reading of meter because this much electricity was never consumed. The detection bill so issued was against the factual position.
3. 3.The petitioners in their written statement contended that respondent has no cause of action. The suit is not maintainable and was filed in a mala fide manner, that respondent was found to have tempered the meter, the meter was checked by M&T Teams seals of the meter were fouled tempered. Resultantly Notice No, 1327 dated 18.02.2006 was issued to the plaintiff, the detection bill was lawfully issued to the plaintiff.
4. 4.The learned trial Court framed necessary issues, recorded evidence of the parties, after hearing the parties decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29.09.2010. The verdict of trial Court was challenged in appeal, the appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28-01-2013 by upholding the decision of trial Court.
5. 5.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that essentially the dispute before the learned trial Court pertains to dispute of metering equipment. It .was beyond the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to adjudicate the controversy regarding metering equipment. Submits that question of jurisdiction could be raised at any stage of the proceedings. In support of his arguments he has placed reliance on the cases of Multan Electric Power Company Ltd, through Chief Executive and another v.
6. Muhammad Ashiq and others (PLD 2006 Supreme Court 328), Munawar Hussain and 2 others v.
7. Sultan Ahmad (2005 SCM R 1388), Messrs Narowal Flour Mills through Managing Director v. WAPDA through Chairman and 3 others (2006 M LD 636), Water and Power Development Authority and others v. Messrs Kamal Food (Pvt.) Ltd. Okara and others (PLD 2012 Supreme Court 371) and Water and Power Development Authority and others v. Mian Muhammad Riaz and another (PLD 1995 Lahore 56).
8. 6.Respondent is duly represented by a counsel. No one has entered appearance on behalf of respondent despite repeated calls, therefore, respondent is proceeded against ex-parte.
9. 7.Arguments heard. Record perused.
10. 8.As is evident from bare perusal of pleadings, Para No, 4 of the plaint and reply to Para No, 2 of the written statement as well as evidence of the parties and discussion under Issues No, 1 and 2 by the trial Court that the dispute in this case relates to metering equipment. The suit was filed by a consumer against the petitioners seeking declaration in this behalf. In view of law laid down in case of Water and Power Development Authority and others v. Messrs Kamal Food (Pvt.) Ltd. Okara and others (PLD 201 Supreme Court 371), the matter falls within the jurisdiction of Electric Inspector because the detection bill was issued after it was found that metering equipment of the respondent was tempered. The operative part of the judgment reads as under: "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."
11. 9.Similar view has been expressed by this Court in the case of Messers Narowal Flour Mills through Managing Director v. WAPDA through Chairman and three others (2006 M LD 636), the operative part of the judgment reads as under: "2. At the very outset of the hearing of the matter it has been realized that the Courts below have failed to take notice of the legal position as to the jurisdiction of the Court and the maintainability of the suit as stated in Water and Power Development Authority and another v. Mian Muhammad Riaz and another (PLD 1995 Lah. 56). In the precedent case the learned Full Bench of this Court had taken the view that the controversies and dispute concerning the slowness of meter or other faults with the equipment's fall within the jurisdiction of the Electric Inspector under Section 26 of the Electricity Act, 1910. The matter thus fell within the exclusive domain of Electric Inspector. The perusal of judgment of the trial Court as also of the appellate Court, however, shows that they were rather oblivious of this aspect of the matter, Since the very jurisdiction of the Court did not extend to try such a lis, the assumption of jurisdiction, the trial of the suit and the judgments rendered by both the Courts stand on no better footing than without jurisdiction. The same are, thus, liable to be set aside."
12. 10.Without commenting on merits of the case it is held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter and it is only the Electric Inspector, who can adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
13. This Civil Revision is accordingly allowed. The judgments and decrees of Civil Court and Appellate Court dated 29.09.2010 and 28.01.2013 respectively are hereby set aside, with no order as to. costs.