2010 PLP 690 (MLD)
TALLAT MAHBOOB — Petitioner Versus SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPE LINES LTD. Through General Manager, Distribution Officer, Sargodha Road, Faisalabad — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 690 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | TALLAT MAHBOOB — Petitioner Versus SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPE LINES LTD. Through General Manager, Distribution Officer, Sargodha Road, Faisalabad — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 690 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 690 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 690 (MLD) (TALLAT MAHBOOB — Petitioner Versus SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPE LINES LTD. Through General Manager, Distribution Officer, Sargodha Road, Faisalabad — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Ijaz Hussain for Petitioner.
- Umer Sharif for Respondent No.1.
- 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the grant of gas connection to respondent No.2 is violative of the policy of the respondent-Department. When confronted, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has placed on the record an agreement, dated 29-11-2007 between the petitioner and the respondent-Department which contains the following stipulation:--
Headnotes / Summary
S. 42
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1, 2 & S.115
Application for grant of temporary injunction
Plaintiff had claimed that he had procured the gas connection by bearing all the expenses from the main pipeline of defendant department to his CNG Filling Station
Claim of the plaintiff was that pipeline being owned by him, defendant should not be permitted to give the connection to third party
Suit filed by the plaintiff was accompanied by an application for the grant of temporary injunction, which was refused by the Trial Court
Counsel for the plaintiff had alleged that grant of gas connection to defendant was violative of the policy of the department
Agreement arrived at between the plaintiff and the department, placed op record, had provided that proprietary right of the gas pipelines and its maintenance would rest with the department, which would have the right to supply through that system at its own cost and without any compensation to the plaintiff
Plaintiff in the light of said agreement was estopped by his own conduct and on account of the clear and unambiguous stipulation in the agreement precluded to maintain a cause of action
No case having been made out for interference in the revisional jurisdiction of High Court, revision petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
The petitioner filed a suit for the declaration claiming that he has procured the gas connection by bearing all the expenses from the main pipeline of the respondent-Department to his CNG Filling Station, which (pipeline) is owned by him and that respondent No.1 should not be permitted to give the connection to a third party (respondent/defendant No.2). The suit was accompanied by an application for the grant of temporary injunction, which has been refused by the learned trial Court vide order, dated 4-2-2009 and the appeal of the petitioner has also failed on 6-6-2009.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the grant of gas connection to respondent No.2 is violative of the policy of the respondent-Department. When confronted, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has placed on the record an agreement, dated 29-11-2007 between the petitioner and the respondent-Department which contains the following stipulation:-- "(4) Proprietary rights of the gas pipelines and its maintenance will rest with Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited and it will have the right to supply through this system as its own cost and without any compensation to Messrs Sumandri CNG Filling Station, to any other consumer(s) and to the adjoining localities including any extension(s) of the system that may be necessary for this purpose." Obviously, in the light of above, the petitioner is estopped by his own conduct, and on account of the clear and unambiguous stipulation is precluded to maintain a cause of action. Therefore, no case is made out for interference in the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. H.B.T./T-7/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.