Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 4722
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court
Parties: Lesco etc vs Sardar Muhammad Yaseen
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court, officially reported as 2026 LHC 4722. In this matter between Lesco etc and Sardar Muhammad Yaseen, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani) DECISION DATE: 01-07-2026 TAGLINE: Suit filed on behalf of deceased person held not maintainable; proceedings declared coram non judice?civil court jurisdiction in electricity disputes explained; implied exclusion doctrine applied? distinction between technical meter disputes and billing/calculation disputes clarified?scope of section 26(6) electricity act, 1910 and section 38 of 1997 act interpreted?tests for implied bar of civil jurisdiction laid down in electricity matters. Exclusive domain of electric inspector and NEPRA in technical disputes reaffirmed-suit on behalf of dead person without legal heirs not maintainable under order xxii CPC?fundamental defect in institution of suit vitiates entire proceedings?concurrent findings set aside due to misreading of technical evidence?revision allowed; illegality in exercise of jurisdiction rectified. CASE DETAILS: Civil Revision 182375/18 ============================================================ Form No: HCJD/C-121
ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)
Case No. C.R. No.182375/2018
LESCO & others Versus Sardar Muhammad Yasin
Sr.No.of order/ Proceedings Date of order/ Proceedings Order with signatures of Judge, and that of parties or counsel, where necessary.
01.07.2026 Mr. Khalid Jameel, Advocate for the petitioners. Respondent is ex-parte. Rana Shamshad Khan, Addl. A.G. on Court’s call.
Through this Civil Revision, LESCO has assailed the concurrent findings of the Civil Court as well as the learned Additional District Judge in appeal, dated 04.07.2016 and 14.12.2017, passed by the courts below, whereby a suit for declaration filed by the respondent, challenging the electricity bill for the month of April 2011 amounting to Rs.2,05,043/ - with the claim that the same was excessive, has been decreed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the suit for declaration filed by the respondent is not maintainable in terms of section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910, as well as in terms of section 38 of The Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 and even otherwise the respondent is not the consumer as per record, and he filed the suit on behalf of a dead person without impleading the legal heirs, which itself is reflective of the fact that the entire proceedings are coram non judice, but the courts below have not appreciated this aspect. It is lastly contended that the respondent was charged with the consumed units as per the reading, and he had not paid the due amount as reflected from the details Exh.D1 brought on record, which gives the complete details of month- wise consumption as well as the balan ce amount against the consumption and consumer No.45117351862500R, which has been used for seven -and-a-half-horsepower motor for water supply to the agricultural land. C.R. No.182375/2018 2
3. Conversely, the respondent has proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.09.2018 recorded in the order sheet. 4. Arguments heard. Record perused. 5. Perusal of the record reflects that the respondent Abdul Kareem filed a civil suit for declaration with injunction, challenging the electricity bill issued by the petitioner company against the installed consumer No.45117351862500R, amounting to Rs.2,05,043/-, with the contention that 19,000 /- extra units could not be charged. In this regard, the respondent appeared as PW -1, Sardar Muhammad, though he is not the actual consumer, and even Para 1 of the plaint clearly reflects the following: یہ کہ عبدالکریم قضائے الہی سے فوتمدعی کنکشن ٹیوب ویل میں مشترکہ حصہ دار ہے اس لیے دعوی ہذا ب ذریعہ ر کیا جا رہا ہے
سردار محمد یساسین محمد یسس دائ . Considering this aspect, it is settled law that no suit is maintainable against a dead person or to be filed on behalf of a dead person without impleading the legal heirs, as required under Order XXII, Rule 3 CPC, but this aspect was ignored by the courts below. 6. I have also attended the proposition with regard to section 38 of Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 , which requires the provincial government to establish provincial offices of inspection of specified technical disputes between electricity consumers and the distribution company. Similarly, the office of inspection is entrusted with matters relating to correction of electricity meters, meter testing, billing disputes, assessment of electricity consumption, collection of electricity charges, and complaints regarding the impl ementation of directions issued by the distribution companies. The provision further provides a statutory appellate remedy before NEPRA against the decision of the office of inspection; thus, the Act creates a complete adjudicatory hierarchy for technical consumer disputes relating to electricity supply, although section 38 does not contain any provision declaring the jurisdiction of civil courts barred or bar of jurisdiction. 7. In this regard, the legislature has refrained from incorporating any express ouster clause in the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997. However, C.R. No.182375/2018 3
the very intention of the lawmaker was to settle technical disputes by authorities possessing technical expertise; thus, the jurisdiction of civil courts stands excluded by necessary implication on those matters which squarely fall within the subject matter of the Electric Inspector or are entrusted to the Electric Inspector. Similarly, on the other hand, if we go through section 45 of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 , which accords overriding effect to the Act and rules, regulations, and licenses issued thereunder over inconsistent laws, hence the concept has to be appreciated in terms of 2023 SCMR 1407 (Messrs Rajby Industries Karachi and others versus Federation of Pakistan and others) 2021 SCMR 1308 (Commissioner Inland Revenue, Multan and others versus Acro Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., Multan and others) 2021 PTD 1355 SC (Commissioner Inland Revenue, Multan and others versus Acro Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., Multan and others) & 2017 SCMR 1218 (Syed Mushahid Shah and others versus Federal Investment Agency and others) . However, if the controversy involves issues which the office of inspection is incompetent to determine, such as fraud, forgery, fabrication of inspection report, mala fide exercise of statutory powers, declaration of civil rights, title to property, and contractual rights, then the jurisdiction of civil courts remains intact under section 9 of CPC, as no provision of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 confers jurisdiction upon statutory authorities to adjudicate such independent civil rights. On the other end, the jurisdiction of civil courts has been considered in terms of section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, and such concept is an exception where special statutes create a special remedy and that remedy should ordinarily be followed. However, exclusion of civil jurisdiction is not readily inferred, as held in 2008 SCMR 1577 (University of the Punjab versus Miss. Wajiha Arooj), whereby it was held that even where a statute bars the jurisdiction, civil courts may interfere if the impugned action is void, without jurisdiction, mala fide, or based on fraud. C.R. No.182375/2018 4
8. This Court has also attended the proposition with reference to section 26 of the Electricity Act, 1910, based upon its subsection (6), which is reproduced as under: [(6) Where any difference or dispute arises between a license and a consumer as to whether any meter, maximum demand indicator or other measuring apparatus is or is not correct the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an Electr ic Inspector, within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of such application, after affording the parties an opportunity of being heard, and where the meter, maximum demand indicator or other measuring apparatus has, in the opinion of the Elec tric Inspector, ceased to be correct, the Electric Inspector shall estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during such time as the meter, indicator or apparatus has not, in the opinion of the Electric Inspector, been correct; and, where the Electric Inspector fails to decide the matter of difference or dispute within the said period or where either the license or the consumer decline to accept the decision of the Electric Inspector, the matter shall be referred to the Provincial Government whose decision shall be final:
From the plain reading of the above-referred provision of the Electricity Act, it appears that in a dispute between the licensee and a consumer with regard to meter, maximum demand indicator, or measuring apparatus, either party has to approach the Electric Inspector within a period of 90 days. On the date of receipt of such application, the Electric Inspector has to extend due right of hearing and shall settle the dispute, including but not limited to the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply or with regard to the apparatus. Such aspect exclusively falls within the domain of the Electric Inspector, primarily on the reason that this is a technical subject which cannot be touched by non - technical authorities, inc luding the courts, especially civil courts. However, in the absence of an ouster clause or barring provision which ousts the jurisdiction of a civil court, this Court has to consider the exclusion by implication test. 9. While considering the statutory scheme, it is demonstrated that disputes of a particular class must be exclusively decided by the C.R. No.182375/2018 5
forum or tribunal created by that statute, and the Court infers legislative intention from the object of the Act, rights created by it, liabilities imposed by it, special tribunal or forum constituted by it, and the remedies provided by and finality attached to the tribunal or forum decision, as in this case under section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 read with section 38 of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 . Therefore, four tests have been laid down for consideration of exclusion by implication test in the following manner: Test 1: Has the statute created a new right or liability? If the answer is yes, it points towards implied exclusion. Test 2: Has the statute also created a special forum? If the answer is yes, then it points towards exclusion. Test 3: Can the forum grant complete relief? If the answer is yes, then it points towards exclusion. Test 4: Is the jurisdiction of the tribunal or forum intended to be exclusive? If the answer is yes in the test results, then in all these cases , the jurisdiction of civil courts stands excluded by implication , and in this regard, civil jurisdiction could not be exercised.
However, in case any final judgment or final order has been passed by the Electric Inspector considering the mandate of section 38 of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 , the aggrieved person by any decision or order of the Provincial Office of Inspection may, within 30 days of the receipt of the order, prefer an appeal to the authority established under the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 , which has been established in terms of section 3 of the said Act, notified by the Federal Government in the official Gazette, which is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal, with power subject to the provisions of this Act. 10. Therefore, there is no cavil to the proposition that those technical forums of the Electric Inspector as well as of NEPRA are the exclusive forums for determination of technical subjects of all electric operators, their disputes with regard to consumption, metering, etc. C.R. No.182375/2018 6
and those technical questions could not be answered by any civil court even after recording of evidence unless the evidence of any Electric Inspector or technical persons appointed by NEPRA or from Disco’s appears in the witness box after final order of electric inspector and NEPRA etc. 11. In order to demonstrate the justification of above discussion, I have gone through the judgment reported as PLD 2012 SC 371 (Water and Power Development Authority and others versus Messrs Kamal Food (PVT) Ltd. Okara and others), 2011 SCMR 226 (Nisar Ahmad versus Masood Akhtar and others) PLD 2017 Lahore 769 (MEPCO and others versus Advisory Board Punjab, Lahore and others) and PLJ 2018 LAHORE 594 (GEPCO, ETC . VERSUS Pakistan Television Corporation Ltd, etc .) and comes to the following principles: (i) Dispute regarding the correctness or accuracy of meter falls within the Section 26 (6) of the Electricity Act, 1910. (ii) Cases involving dishonest abstraction of energy, theft of electricity or meter tempering do not fall within section 26(6) of Electricity Act, 1910. (iii) Whether meter is running fast or slow; whether meter has become defective; whether it correctly record consumption; all these matters fall under exclusive jurisdiction of electric inspector under Section 26 (6) of the Electricity Act, 1910. (iv) Neither distribution company nor the civil court can substitute the statutory mechanism where section 26(6) is attracted. (v) Court shall classify the allegations such as: (a) Dishonest abstraction of energy; (b) Direct hooking; (c) Bypassing the meter; (d) Fraudulent interference with meter equipment;
are not fall within the concept of meter dispute. All such allegations involved disputed questions of fact requiring evidence and C.R. No.182375/2018 7
cannot be decided by the electric inspector under Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910. (vi) Where dispute concerns allegations of electricity theft or un authorize abstraction of energy, the civil court has jurisdiction unless its jurisdiction is expressly excluded by statue hence, controversy require: (a) recording of evidence; (b) examination and cross examination of witnesses; (c) scrutiny of documentary evidence; (d) findings on fraud or dishonest conduct
are classical adjudicatory functions which electric inspector could not perform (vii) Detection bill is not the conclusive proof of liability, it is merely the utility claim. Where disputed, its legality must be establish before competent forum through legally admissible evidence. (viii) Electricity authorities cannot act as a judge in their own cause under the principle of nemo judex in causa sua hence, the courts strongly discouraged the practice whereby electricity distribution company detect the theft, investigate itself, determines li ability, issued detection bill and finally becomes the beneficiary of its own determination against the principle that no one could be judged in its own cause.
12. While considering the above principles, this Court also evaluated the electric inspector who drives its authority from Section 24, 26, 30, 33, 36, 37 & 38 of the Electricity Act, 1910 and the electricity rules, 1937 (Inspection & Safety). The electric inspector most important jurisdiction concerns disputes regarding; (i) Whether meter is correct; (ii) Whether it records consumption accurately; (iii) Whether it has become defective; (iv) The period during which it ceased to function correctly and (v) Estimation of consumption for that period C.R. No.182375/2018 8
Hence, the jurisdiction confine to these technical metering disputes only therefore, the electric inspector who is performing a technical role of calibration, functioning of meter, testing procedures, electrical measurement, estimation of energy where mete r is found defective, for all these functions, the inspector ordinarily based upon the following reports. (a) Lab testing of meter report (b) Calibration report (c) Inspection notes (d) Seal and physical condition of meter (e) Connected load (f) Consumption history (g) Other technical evidence.
Therefore considering all these functions and the mode and manner in which electric inspector performs its duty, he can pass the decision accordingly on the basis of above referred provisions of law including but not limited to inquiries or different accidents , events inspect any electric metering equipment installed at any consumer place, prepare these technical reports and give its findings which have nothing to do with the civil court as no civil court can perform such a role of electric inspector tho ugh, there is no bar to consider these reports in appropriate cases under the law. 13. Hence, considering the above referred test, nature of working of electric inspector vis-à-vis the report, it is clear that the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred in those matters . I have attended the proposition based upon the evidence and it appears that it is not a case of metering dispute nor abstraction of energy and neither theft by consumer rather simply a calculation dispute where consumer has not paid the due bills as reflected from the details of Exh.D1 but both the courts below have not able to reach ed at just conclusion to consider the details provided in Exh.D1 for verification of due amount vis-à-vis the deferred amount from the Exh.D1 statement. The column of payment speaks volume about the conduct of the plaintiff who has not paid the due amount on many months and due to the said reason, the amount has been calculated and this aspect has clearly been C.R. No.182375/2018 9
established in the testimony of DW -1 Kashif Ali meter reader. As a result whereof, the observation given by the trial Court on issue No.1. The defendants had not produced evidence to produce on what account said amount of Rs.205 ,043/- was mentioned in the deposited bill and maintained by appellate Court is misreading of technical evidence available as Exh.D1. Hence, the concurrent judgment s and decrees are against law and fact and this court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is fully equipped to rectify the wrong in exercise of jurisdiction in an incorrect manner by the courts below. 14. Therefore, instant revision is allowed, and the concurrent findings of the courts below are hereby set aside.
(Mohsin Akhtar Kayani) Judge
Approved for reporting
Judge
Jahanzaib*