2022 PLP 536 (YLR)
SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LIMITED through General Manager, SNGPL — Petitioner Versus TAHA SPINNING MILLS LIMITED (CAPTIVE POWER GENERATION UNIT) and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2022 PLP 536 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LIMITED through General Manager, SNGPL — Petitioner Versus TAHA SPINNING MILLS LIMITED (CAPTIVE POWER GENERATION UNIT) and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act (XI of 2016) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 536 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act (XI of 2016) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2022 PLP 536 (YLR)?
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: 2022 PLP 536 (YLR) (SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LIMITED through General Manager, SNGPL — Petitioner Versus TAHA SPINNING MILLS LIMITED (CAPTIVE POWER GENERATION UNIT) and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Umer Sharif for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Nasir Sheikh for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 6 & 7
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, R. 10
Complaints and suits for default before Gas Utility Courts
Court may strike out or add parties
Scope
Petitioner assailed order passed by Gas Utility Court whereby it had deleted the names of two defendants from the array of defendants
Such course was not permissible and the Gas Utility Court was to decide the application for leave to defend and prior to that no proceedings unilaterally and without any application having been filed, could be commenced by the Gas Utility Court to strike out the parties from the plaint
Impugned order was set aside
Constitutional petition was allowed and the Gas Utility Court was directed to proceed to determine the application for leave to defend first and upon that basis pass any further order if at all necessary.
Judgment & Decree
SHAHID KARIM, J.
This constitutional petition challenges the order dated 22.2.2021 passed by the Gas Utility Court Nankana Sahib.
2. It is admitted on all hands that a suit was filed by the petitioner against the respondents Nos.1(a) and (b). While the application for leave to defend was pending, the Gas Utility Court proceeded to delete the names of the respondents Nos.1(a) and (b), Najeeb Mushtaq Vohra and Abid Ali from the array of defendants. This course is not permissible and the Gas Utility Court ought to have decided the application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner and prior to that no proceedings unilaterally and without any application having been filed, could have been commenced by the Gas Utility Court to strike out the parties from the plaint. As stated above, the impugned order was passed without an application having been made in this regard and upon hearing oral arguments of the parties. It is also interesting to note that one of the respondents had not filed any application for leave to defend and by the impugned order he has been extended a benefit without even associating himself in the proceedings before the Gas Utility Court. For all these reasons, the impugned order is unlawful and is hereby set aside. This petition is allowed. The Gas Utility Court shall proceed to determine the applications for leave to defend firstly and upon that basis to pass any further orders if at all necessary. SA/S-48/L Petition allowe