2019 PLP 1402 (YLR)

SYED MUHAMMAD ATTIQUE SHAH, J.

SNGPL, through Regional Manager has challenged the validity of order dated 15.09.2018 passed by learned Gas Utility Court Mansehra, whereby the appellant (SNGPL) was directed to reconnect the gas supply as well as de-sealing of gas equipment of Ahzaz CNG subject to payment of 40% of disputed amount. The appellant has also challenged the validity of order dated 02.10.2018 whereby the request of the appellant for adjournment was turned down and evidence of the appellant was closed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant filed a suit against the respondents for recovery of Rs. 23279882/- along with 10% monthly surcharge before the learned Gas Utility Court, Mansehra. The suit was contested by the respondents by filing their written statement. During pendency of the suit, respondent Adil Khan moved an application dated 09.12.2015 for issuance of direction to the appellants to reconnect his gas supply which application was contested by the appellant. The learned trial court, vide the impugned order, accepted the said application of the respondent/ defendant, hence the instant civil revision.

3. Today, at the very outset of the proceedings, learned counsel representing the respondents have challenged the very maintainability of present FAO being filed against an interlocutory order and is thus barred by Section 13(6) of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 and requested for its dismissal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, when confronted with the above situation, he could not controvert the objection of learned counsel for the respondents.

5. Arguments heard and record perused.

6. Perusal of the record reveals that a suit under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 was brought by the appellant against the respondent before the Court of Learned Additional District Judge-I, Mansehra. The respondents were summoned, who attended the court and have submitted their written statement. They also filed an application for restoration of gas supply and accordingly the learned trial court, vide its impugned order dated 15.09.2018 allowed the said application. Now the appellants have assailed the same before this court in present FAO. It is worth to mention that proceedings before the learned trial court are governed under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016. Section 13(6) of the Act ibid is reproduced as under for ease reference:-- "13(6) No appeal, review or revision shall lie against an order accepting or rejecting an application for leave to defend, or any interlocutory order of the Gas Utility Court which does not dispose of the entire case before the Gas Utility Court." Through the impugned order, the learned trial court has disposed of application of the respondent/ defendant and not the main suit, which squarely falls within the ambit of Section 13(6) of the Act ibid. Therefore, without dilating upon the merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either of the parties, the present appeal stands dismissed being not maintainable under Section 13(6) of the Act ibid. SA/43/P Appeal dismissed.