MUHAMMAD AKRAM versus WAPDA THROUGH CHAIRMAN, WAPDA
O XXXIX, Rr 1 & 2 Electricity Act (I10 of 1910), Section 24 (1) of the Special Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 42 of the Plaintiff (applicant) filed a declaration against the Authority (defendant) on this basis. The case was filed that the plaintiff's power connection with the latter intention was disconnected and a criminal case was filed against him alleging that the plaintiff had committed theft of power authority, he issued a clue to the plaintiff. Who, together with the declaratory case, filed an application. AXNX, R1 and 2, CPC, but the same was dismissed by the trial court against the trial court order, the first appellate court deposited half the amount of the conditional bill under the plaintiff within one month. Was allowed, and the issuance of bail bond for the remaining amount before the trial court's convictions against the plaintiff was that the FIR filed against it was canceled after a thorough investigation, and this is not the case. Under section 24 (1) of the Act of 1910, it was not given before the meter was disconnected. The accuracy record revealed that the FIR was not yet canceled against the accused in connection with the theft of electricity but was recommended only for integration. Components were temporarily lacking in order in this case. I was involved in a question which could not be decided without recording the evidence, the order of the first appellate court was appropriate and the court accepted the plaintiff's request for proper submission. The plaintiff had already received arbitrary relief to present half of the illicit detention bill and the rest of the amount guaranteed, and the High Court, in an unknown order, found no illegal or material misconduct.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
