Find a Lawyer

SAID ALEEM JAN versus PESCO (WAPDA) THROUGH CHAIRMAN

Sections 24 and 26 of the Special Relief Act (in 1877), Section 42 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), the XLI, R31 suit for overpayment of electricity and supply of premises The discontinued plaintiff / consumer sued the plaintiff for the declaration that the defendant demanded the plaintiff to pay the maximum amount of electricity. Or the power supply should be disconnected from the premises and the defendant was obliged to send a revised and correct electricity bill to the plaintiff after deducting the amount due, the defendant also decided the trial as a loss hearing. But the appellate court postponed the decision by the trial court to the correctness of the trial court's decision was not viable, as compared to the appellate court's decision, it suffered serious legal errors. The appellate court reformed the trial court's findings by changing and replacing it. These findings, which were supported by the adjudication, are neither contradictory to the evidence on record, nor do they violate the principles of record management that, on several occasions, show that the plaintiff was entitled to a right and He was caught red-handed while stealing electricity through direct contact. From the Central Pole, the appellate court gave its conclusions on all points of contention, it seems that any prejudice was caused by the plaintiff, rendering the matter by the appellate court with wise results, was it not a requirement of the law as such Under XLI, R, 31, CPC, the appellate court had to state the points for the determination, giving its verdict. And the reasons for the above decision immigration advocates from Kot Bunglow lawyer