Messrs SOHAIL TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED through Mian Najeeb Usman, Director
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside concurrent findings of the two lower courts in a civil suit. The petitioner-company had originally successfully challenged an electricity bill issued by WAPDA, obtaining a decree from the Civil Judge, Sheikhupura, which was upheld by the District Judge. The High Court, in civil revision, subsequently dismissed the suit, prompting the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court. The core legal questions involve whether the High Court erred in condoning a time-barred revision petition and whether it improperly interfered with concurrent findings of fact without identifying specific instances of misreading or non-reading of evidence. The petitioner further argued that the High Court ignored critical evidence, specifically the admission by the WAPDA official regarding the testing method used for the electricity meter and expert testimony regarding the limitations of that method. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions, thereby setting the stage for a review of the High Court's exercise of revisional jurisdiction regarding factual findings and limitation issues.
- Can a High Court set aside concurrent findings of fact in civil revision without identifying specific instances of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Is a revision petition maintainable if it is filed beyond the period of limitation without sufficient cause?
- Does the failure to send an electricity meter to a laboratory for testing, relying instead on a Revolving Selector Switch, constitute a valid basis for challenging a billing dispute?
' QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.---The petitioner-company had filed a suit before the learned Civil Judge, Sheikhupura wherein a prayer was made to the effect that the Electricity Bill dated 16-6-1981 in the sum of Rs,5,61,970.05 may be declared as illegal, void and ineffective on its rights. The suit was decreed on 23-2-1985 and the appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Sheikhupura vide judgment dated 23-5-1985. Thereafter, the respondent filed a Civil Revision (No, 1142/1986) which was allowed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore on 3-5-1999, the concurrent findings of the two Courts below were set aside and the suit was dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The petitioner-company has sought leave to appeal against the said judgment.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision petition was badly barred by limitation but the delay was condoned for reasons devoid of substance and concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below were set aside without highlighting instances of misreading and non-reading of evidence. It was further contended that the High Court had not only overlooked the admission of the XEN, WAPDA, that he had checked the meter through Revolving Switch and had not sent the same to the Laboratory for testing but also the statement of Electric Inspector (P.W.11) that it is not possible to judge the slowness of a meter through a Revolving Selector Switch.
3. The learned counsel for the caveator reiterated the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment on the basis whereof the revision petition was allowed and the suit dismissed.
4. Leave to appeal is granted to consider the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Notice to the respondent.
Leave to .