KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J. - This second appeal was directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.7.1993 whereby learned Additional Distt tet Judge Faisalabad (then Lyallpur) dismissed the appeal of the appellant and thereby upheld the judgment and ing the suit of the plaintiff- appellant.
2. I have heard the learned counsel who has taken me through the impugned judgment and facts on record. The very perusal of both the judgments would show that except for the bald statement of the plaintiff who appeared as PW 7, no other evidence was placed on record to support the version that the amount .On account of consumption of electricity demanded through disputed bill, was not due. The witnesses produced by the plaintiff who were officer/officials of the Wapda did not support him. Leamed counsel pointed out that Ext. P.3 reveals that the meter in question was incorrect. This matter has been dealt with in detail by the learned trial Judge in his judgment dated 28.10.1970 and incorrectness of the meter was held to be inconsequential as it was explained by the court witness- namely Mr. Muhammad Hasham, S.D.O, that the allied apparatus and not the meter was the determining factor in such situation and that the other method of charging for the electricity supply is the load of electricity consumed. Learned counsel in this respect did not address, any argument. The reasons given by the learned courts below for dismissing the suit have not been controverted even before me during arguments. This being the position, no justification is made out to differ with the findings concurrently reached by the courts below. The appeal therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.