| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 2854 2024 SLD 2854 2024 CLC 164 |
Lahore High Court
R.F.A. No.51 934 of 2022, decided on 7th September, 2022.Date of hearing: 7th September, 2022.
Before Shahid Jamil Khan, J
Nadeem Butt for Appellants. Nemo. for
Respondents.
R.F.A. No.51 934 of 2022, decided on 7th September, 2022.Date of hearing: 7th September, 2022.
Before Shahid Jamil Khan, J
Nadeem Butt for Appellants. Nemo. for
Respondents.
SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPE LINES LIMITED and others----Appellants
VERSUS
FARMAN ALI and others----Respondents
Law: Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, (XI of 2016)
Section: 13
(a) Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act (XI of 2016)--- ----S. 13---Judgment passed by the Gas Utility Court---Appeal---Admission by means of a reasoned order---Statutory requirement---Appellate Court, jurisdiction of---Scope---Consumer ,having domestic connection, filed suit against Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Company ('Gas Company') for charging him commercial tariff through detection bill---Gas Utility Court decreed the suit against the Gas Company---Assertion of the appellant (Gas Company) was that difference between consumption of gas in various months and amount of bills reflected that purpose of connection was being misused---Validity---Record revealed that excessive consumption amounting to bill of Rs. 17,092/= related to one month only, which was not a conclusive proof to establish that the connection was being used for commercial purpose---Appellant (Gas Company) could not show independent evidence to establish its assertion and exhibiting a mere report by an official was not conclusive unless the allegation was supported with other evidence after inquiry into the matter---Witnesses produced by the appellant were not found conversant with the dispute; even the person who prepared the Meter Inspection Report (MIR) was not produced as a witness for examination and cross-examination---Perusal of impugned judgment showed that the evidence produced by the appellant was carefully examined by the Trial Court and reasons for inadmissibility of the evidence were found cogent and pragmatic---No ground or reason of admission of appeal, in part or in whole, was made out---Regular first appeal was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. (b) Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act (XI of 2016)--- ----Ss. 13 & 5(3)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R. 11---Judgment passed by the Gas Utility Court---Appeal---Special provisions for admission---Phrase "In part or in whole"---Scope---Provisions of S.13 of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 ('the Act, 2016') are special to override the general provisions, conferring jurisdiction of appeal to the High Court---Rule 11 of O. XLI of the Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) envisages dismissal of appeal…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492