ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.----This Regular Second Appeal in terms of section 100 of The Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908)
(hereinafter referred as "C.P.C.") arises out of judgment and decree dated 27.12.2013 (hereinafter "the impugned judgment ") whereby the learned District Judge, Lasbela at Hub (hereinafter "the Appellate Court ") while dismissing the Regular First Appeal filed by the appellant upheld the judgment and decree dated 31.11.2012 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hub.
2. Epitomized facts necessary for adjudication of instant appeal are that the appellant/plaintif f instituted a suit for declaration, injunction and cancellation of unjustified enhance bills averring therein that the appellant/plaintif f established a plant at Hub by investing huge amount. Sister company of the appellant/plaintif f laid "Dia Pipeline" with a major share of the appellant/plaintif f in the year 1983, thereafter , the said supply line was badly damaged due to rough handling and worst management, so, appellant/plaintif f requested Managing Director , LIEDA for installation of new pipeline through letter No.251 11 dated 20.03.2003. The letter was not responded by MD LIEDA , however , Higher Authorities were pleased to grant permission to appellant/plaintif f by issuing NOC in favour of appellant/plaintif f. The appellant/plaintif f spent huge amount and laid a new pipelin e, on the assurance of authority that XEN Canal would charge from appellant/plaintif f Rs.11 (Rupees. Eleven Only) per unit (One Thousand Gallons). It is further alleged that the Executive Engineer Irrigation Division Hub despite the assurance given to appellant/plaintif f suddenly enhanced the rate of water from Rs.11 (Rupees Eleven Only) per unit to Rs.42 (Rupees Forty Two Only) per unit and thereafter Rs.55 (Rupees Fifty Five Only) per unit and then Rs.73 (Seventy :Three Only) per unit without any justification. The respondents resisted the suit, being the defendants. While submitting their written statement, they controverted the assertions contained in the plaint. From the divergent pleadings of the contested parties following multiple issues were framed:- "1) Whether the suit of plaintiff in not maintainable in view of preliminary legal objection No.II to VII?
2) Whether the plaintiff after terrible and huge expenses with the consent of defendants laid pipeline and the authorities ensured the Executive Canal will be charged an amount of Rs.1 1/- per unit (1000 gallon)?
3) Whether the enhancement of rate per unit from Rs.11/- to Rs.73/- is illegal and unlawful and without due course of law by defendants?
4) Whether no any contract made between plaintiff and defendants for the supply of water?
5) Whether no any permanent rate can be fixed for supply of water and under circumstances the rate could be enhanced keeping in view past and present cost and expenses?
6) Whether the plaintiff not for betterment of local inhabitant but for the object to lay a separate pipeline for establishment of a plant to get more and more water?
7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief claimed for?
8) Relief?
3. After framing of issues, parties to the suit produced their respective evidence and on completion of the same, suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 31.11.2012 by the trial Court. Being aggrieved from the judgment and decree, the appellant/plaintif f filed appeal under section 96 of the C.P.C. before the learned District Judge, Hub, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 27.12.2013.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondents at considerable length and also perused the record.
5. The nutshell of the appellant/plaintif f's case is that the controversy between parties is only related to rate of water which was enhanced from initial rate of Rs.11/- per thousand gallon to Rs.42/-, Rs.52/- and then Rs.73/- per unit.
Question needs consideration is that, whether the plaintif f was ensured by defendants/respondents that he would be charged at Rs.11/- per thousand gallon forever? The appellant/plaintif f making the payment of Rs.52/- per thousand gallon to defendants/responden ts under protest but he could not produc ed any single document in this regard that enhancement of the rate by the defendants/respondents is illegal and are without lawful authority .
However , PW-4 Taj Muhammad produced circular of LIEDA (Ex.P/4-6) wherein the rates of outsider factories revised Rs.52/- per 1000 gallon and the plaintif f after time to time enhancement of rate by respondents/defendants makeg payment of water charges. In rebuttal, the defendants/respondents produced representative of Water Board Karachi as DW-1 Imtiaz Afridi, who placed rates of water Board of Sindh A Gover nment for domestic, commercial and industries as (Ex.D/1-1) to (Ex.D/1-3) wherein the rates for industries is fixed Rs.73/- per thousand gallon and other plea taken by the appellant/plaintif f that at Karachi the industrialist provided all the facilities along with pumping of water from reserve wires by water Board. Although the industrialists of Karachi facilitated but the witnesses of appellant/plaintif f admitted this fact that water which supplied from Dam to their factories needs no pumping on the other hand the defendant No.1/respondent XEN being a Canal Officer has the power of Civil Courts under section 27 of Balochistan Canal and Drainage Ordinance, 1980. Similarly , section 30 of said Ordinance reflected that in absence of written contract every water supply of canal water shall be deem to be given at the rate of subject to the condition of prescribed rates.
6. The careful analysis of the evidence shows that PWs-1, 2 and 3 are the employe es of the plaintif f/appellant have given the oral account about the plaintif f/appellant case. PW-4 produced record of LIEDA which consist upon billings, challans and list of consumers having no relevancy with the instant issue. It was upon plaintif f/appellant that he could not produce any material evidence to prove that the concerned authorities of Irrigation Department ever gave assurance to plaintif f/appellant that he would be charged at the rate of Rs.11/- per thousand gallon and the same shall not be changed in future. The documentary evidence which have been produced by appellant/plaintif f does not mention the said alleged assurance given by defendants for fixing the rate as Rs.11/- per thousand gallon. However , some letters have been placed on record by plaintif f/appellant i.e. letter written by the appellant/plaintif f to the Principal Secretary Governor of Balochistan, MD of LIEDA and to Secretary Irrigation.
In all these documents its mentioned that the plaintif f/appellant requested the authorities for new water line. All these documents are applications with subject to "Request of New Pipeline" that is too on his own risk and cost.
7. Since the evidence produced by both the parties does not bring on record any such contract executed between parties for supply of water , though through negotiation they have reached to the agreement for supply of water , such negotiation is deemed to be contract between the parties, subject to the condition that the respondent would supply water and the appellant would pay its charges, because as per provisions of section 31 of Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, in absence of any contract with regard to supply of water , water supply would be subject to rules and supply of water would be subjec t to payment of charges, this in absence of any contract, the provisions of section 31 of Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 would apply .
8. We have also examined the judgments passed by the learned Civil Judge as well as learned District and Sessions Judge and unable to find any misreading or non-reading of evidence. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintif f after careful analyzing the D material available on the record. The said judgment was further affirmed by the learned District Judge in appeal filed by the appellant/p laintif f by way of judgment dated 27.12.2013.
9. This is a Regular Second Appeal which has a very limited scope as provided under section 100 of C.P.C. The concurrent findings cannot be interfered with unless some procedural defect, materially effecting such findings is pointed out by the appellant/plaintif f. Reliance in this respect can be placed on Bashir Ahmed v. Mst. Taja Begum and others PLD 2010 SC 906 and Muhammad Feroze and others v . Muhammad Jamaat Ali 2006 SCMR 1304 .
For what has been discussed above, we have no hesitation in our mind to hold that the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below are neither perverse nor arbitrary , so as to justify the interference in exercise of jurisdiction contemplated in section 100 of C.P.C. Consequently , the instant second appeal, being without any merit is dismissed with no order as to costs.