Sections 24, 26, 26A & 39 of the Special Relief Act (of 1877), Articles 42 and 55, and the plaintiff who filed the lawsuit for the injunctive injunction, filed a claim and mandatory injunction, indicating that They have a detection bill issued by the authorities. The trial and appeal of the trial court's decision and trial were dismissed by the trial court against the illegal, illegal, ultra-virus and law. ) Both courts failed to take legal notice of judicial jurisdiction under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Electric Inspector of Electricity Act, 1910, relating to the slowdown or other malfunction of the power meter with the equipment. Conflicts and conflicts had fallen within it. Under the power of section 26 of the Electricity Act, 1910, the jurisdiction of the electric inspector falls under the circumstances, in the special jurisdiction of the electric inspector, since such courts, in the extreme jurisdiction of the court, understand the jurisdiction, Was not extended to extend the hearing and the verdict given by both the courts, without any jurisdiction there could not have been a better decision. Plaintiff's counsel argued that no notice was given to him under section 24 of the Electricity Act 1910, in which absence a civil suit was required to remain as it was mandatory when the supply was closed. Electricity was to be made, but in the present case only one ction tracking bill, issued under section 26 (6) of the Electricity Act 1910, was imposed on both the courts' improper decisions and orders. \ R \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
