TARIQ SALEEM SHEIKH, J.---This revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. is directed against judgment and decree dated 2.7.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, whereby he accepted the Respondents' appeal and dismissed the Petitioner's suit.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner is an electricity consumer and the Respondents have installed Meter . No.29-15226- 11933504-RD at his place. On 7-1-2012 he filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against them challenging detection bill dated 30-12-201 1 for Rs.600,928/- alleging that it was mala fide and illegal.. He prayed that the same may be declared to be without lawful authority and the Respondents he permanently restrained from disconnecting his power supply . The learned Civil Court summoned the Respondents who contested the suit. They maintained that the Petitioner was involved in abstraction of electricity by tampering his meter . He was issued Show Cause Notice No.4066 dated 27-12-201 1 but he did not respond to it whereupon the impugned detection bill was sent and proceedings were initiated for registratio n of FIR against him. On 30-3- 2013 the learned Civil Court framed the following issues from the divergent pleadings of the parties:
1. Whether the Plaintif f is entitled for a declaratory decree on the basis of averments made in the plaint? OPP
2. Whether the suit of the Plaintif f is based upon wrong facts and Plaintif f has no cause of action? OPD
3. Whether the Plaintif f was caught red handed while busy in electricity pilfering, hence suit is not maintainable?
OPD
4. Relief.
3. After framing the issues as aforesaid the learned Civil Court recorded evidence of the parties, heard arguments and decreed the Petitioner's suit vide judgment and decree dated -9-2-2017. The Respondents preferred appeal thereagainst which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 2.7.2019. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed the instant revision petition before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner had produced reliable evidence in support of his claim and the learned Civil Court had rightly decreed his suit. According to him, the learned Additional District Judge had grossly misread the record while overturning that decision. The impugned judgment and decree dated 2.7.2019 were based on conjectures and surmises and thus liable to be set aside.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The Petitioner challenged the detec tion bill amounting to Rs.600,928/- (Exh.P-1) on the ground that the Respondents had issued the same on the basis of fake/fictitious reading. On the other hand, the Respondents' stand is that it is not so. The Petitioner tampered his meter and was caught red handed while abstracting electricity .
Thereupon the impugned detection bill, was accordingly issued to him after observing all codal formalities. Issue No.3 attends to this Controversy but its importance lies in the fact that the decision thereon also determines whether the Civil Courts had jurisdiction in the matter . The other issues are ancillary to it.
7. The Petitioner testified as PW-1 and denied any wrongdoing. However , during cross-examination he contended that MEPCO's staff visited the site and checked his meter and the transformer . Khuda Bakhsh (PW-2) re-confirmed the said fact and added that they indicted the proceedings. In documentary evidence the Petitioner produced the impugned detection bill (Exh.P-1) and electricity bill for October , 2014 (Ex(t.P-2). In contrast, Fayyaz Jalil, Inspector WAPDA M&T (DW-1), deposed that on 13-12-201 1 he along with Muhammad Ramzan Jarwar (Incharge Circle Surveillance M-I) and staff of the WAPDA Sub-Division checked the Petitioner's electricity meter and found jt tampered. He had made a hole in it and connected to the L.T. bushes of the transformer with running load of 37-50 KW. He further stated that he prepared the M&T Report and forwarded the same to the SDO for further action.
Muhammad Asghar (DW-2), one of the members of the MEPCO's checking team, deposed ,on the same lines. In documentary evidence the Responden ts adduced the M&T Report (Exh.D-1), Notice No.4066 (Exh.D-2), Consumption Data (Exh.D-3) and application dated 15-12-201 1 for registration of FIR (Exh.D-4).
8. The onus to prove issue No.3 was on the Respondents which they successfully discharged through reliable oral and documentary evidence. The learned Additional District Judge has also held so.
9. Electricity Act, 1910 (the "Act"), is a special enactment which lays down the law relating to supply and use of electrical energy . Sections 26 & 26-A thereof deal with dishonest abstraction or consumption of energy and mechanism for resolution of disputes between the licensee and the consumer . Thes e provisions were considered in a number of cases but in Water and Power Development Authority and others v. Messrs Kamal Food (PVT)
Ltd. Okara and others (PLD 2012 SC 371 ) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan finally settled the law as under: "It follows from the above case-law that where the allegation against the consumer of electrical power is of dishonest consumption of energy through manipulation of, or tampering with, the metering equipment or other similar apparatus, the Electric Inspector would still have the authority to entertain reference under Section 26(6). In case the theft shell alleged is by means other than tampering or manipulation of the metering equipment etc., the matter would fall exclusively under Section 26-A of the Act outside the scope of powers of Electric Inspector . Since the Electric Inspector possesses special expertise in examining the working of the metering equipment and other related apparatus, it makes sense that any issue regarding their working, functioning or correctness, whether or not deliberately caused, be examined by him. It may be added that section 26-A is an enabling provision empowering the licensee to charge the consumer for dishonest extraction or consumption of electricity . It does not provide any procedure for resolving any dispute between consumer and the licensee on a charge of theft. It should, therefore, be read in conjunction with the other relevant provisions, including section 26(6) of the Act.
10. In the instant case, since there was allegation of theft of electricity against the Petitioner through deliberate tampering with the metering equipment, only the Electric Inspector and the Advisory Board constituted under the Act had jurisdiction in the matter. The Petitioner's suit before the Civil Court was not competent.
11. For all the above reasons, I find no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. 1 These include Water and Power Development Authority and others v. Mian Muhammad Riaz and another PLD 1995 Lah. 56, Colony Textile Mills Ltd. Multan through Factory Manager v. Chief Executive, Multan Electricity Power Company and (MEPCO), Multan and 2 others 2004 SCMR 1679; Multan Electric Power Company Ltd. through Chief Executive and another v. Muhammad Ashiq and others PLD 2006 SC 328; Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman, WAPDA and 4 others v. Abdul Skakoor through Legal Heirs PLD 2008 Lah. 175 and WAPDA v. Muhammad Azeem 2009 MLD 1434.