2. The respondents in the four revision petitions are industrial consumers of electric energy being supplied by the petitioners. On an inspection in May,1986, it was found that meters installed at the premises of the respondents had been tampered with by employing a slowing device thereby preventing them from showing actual consumption of electric energy. Eventually detection bills were served on the respondents. They instituted suits assailing the validity of the detection bills. The parties consented to refer the dispute to the Electric Inspector, Punjab, Faisalabad and agreed that they would be bound by the decision of the Electric Inspector. The suits were disposed of accordingly. Subsequently, however, the respondents did not move the Electric Inspector within the stipulated period and, therefore, the petitioners again served them with fresh bills on the basis of the earlier inspection. .
3. The respondents again instituted four suits. During the pendency of the suits., the trial Court allowed the respondents to move the Electric Inspector, as agreed upon in the earlier suits, to obtain his reports on the correctness or otherwise of the meters installed at their premises. The Electric Inspector in his reports observed that the meters installed at the premises of the respondents except Shahid Rashid were fast instead of slow and that no opinion could be given as regards the meter pertaining to the premises of Shahid Rashid as the same had been burnt. In spite of the reports, the trial Court declined to grant ad interim injunction to the respondents restraining the petitioners from realizing charges from them on the basis of its stand that the meters installed at their premises were slow.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents preferred appeals which were heard by the Addl. District Judge, Faisalabad who vide his judgment dated 25th of April, 1987 accepted them and restrained the petitioners from recovering the disputed bills from the respondents or disconnecting their premises or charging them on average basis. However, it was .Undertaken on behalf of the.
Respondents that they would pay the bills issued on the basis of the reports of the Electric Inspector. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioners have filed these revision petitions.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The factual controversy as to whether the meters installed at the premises of the respondents were running slow or not at the relevant time is sub judice in the trial Court. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the respondents have paid bills for current charges as well as bills for the period in dispute in accordance with the reports of the Electric Inspector. The Executive Engineer and the Revenue Officer of the area concerned who are present alongwith learned counsel for the petitioners concede the assertion of learned counsel for the respondents. Suffice it to say that in view of the reports of the Electric Inspector, prima facie case preponderates in favour of 'the respondents. \ 6. In In these circumstances, these revision 'petitions are without force. Accordingly the same are dismissed. The parties are, however left to bear their own costs.