PESCO THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE PESCO, PESHAWAR versus ASMATULLAH KHAN
Sections 42 & 54 54 Sue for Declaration and Permanent Order Plaintiff sued Plaintiff to claim that she was a power user who did not make a mistake in paying the power consumption, during the reconsideration period It was illegal to release Alihan for two years, justice against natural law, without notice. Thus, it was claimed that the unreasonable order passed behind the plaintiff was based on Macau and was not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed for a permanent injunction that the defendant should receive the amount. Ban under which the lawsuit is going on. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 55,089 relating to the period for which the premises were billed during the disconnection of the premises and were declared invalid, however, as against the actual used energy balance of Rs. 16,770. Was due. After the expulsion against the judgment and injunction relating to the trial, the defendants had jointly filed a review against the verdicts and the orders of the courts were recognized as being connected with the delivery of the plaintiff. It was also admitted that through the record of the plaintiff, all material devices along with the meter were taken away, which proved that the plaintiff's power supply was connected for two years and in this regard both the following courts Keeping in view the present circumstances and the relevant evidence. On the record, the following two courts produced mixed results against the plaintiff, which were strictly in accordance with the principles of the definition of evidence. In the absence of any misreading or reading of evidence, and irregularity in proceedings, the two courts below have the same concurrence.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2009
