HAJI ABDUL BARI versus SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SUB-DEVISION QESCO
Sections 54C, 2 (C), 6, 16, 24, 25 and 26 of the Electricity Rules, 1937, Summary Terms, Condition No. 16 Specific Relief Act (I 1877), Section 42 suit granted by the Scope Trial Court. Case dismissed. The appellate court dismissed the appeal against the plaintiff claiming that he was not obliged to pay the electricity bills issued in the name of his former tenants; the plaintiff also disputed the defendant / WAPDA until the correction of the bill. The order was filed for restraining order to prevent the payment of electricity and demanded restoration of the electrical connection. The plaintiff / WAPDA claimed that the landlord, not the tenant, was only discharged on section 54C of the Electricity Act, 1910. The court's jurisdiction is restricted in matters relating to energy and energy recovery. Provided by licensors but did not preclude the affected person from filing a lawsuit against the license or any act of WAPDA. However, relief on the payment of dues / dues was subject to court The courts failed to recognize that the plaintiff also sought several reliefs which were not related to payment of dues, therefore, both courts erroneously found this. That the case was not sustained. Connection maintenance assistance is denied, but other aids sought by the plaintiff should have been considered and awarded should the electrical connection be imposed on the premises owned by the plaintiff, and 17 years Was previously disconnected but remained silent for all these years while the aforesaid premises were occupied by the tenants as the plaintiff owner / landlord, a "user" defined in section 2 (c) of the Electricity Act, 1910 K
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2011
