' MEHMOOD MAQBOOL BAJWA, J.---Legality of judgment dated 9-12-2011 has been called in question at the instance of petitioner whereby learned Addl. District. Judge, Faisalabad while accepting the appeal preferred by respondent set aside the order dated 7-5-2011 made by learned Civil Judge, Faisalabad, accepting the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. Necessary facts for the disposal of present revision petition are that in August, 2009; respondent required the petitioner to pay Rs,11,34,988 by issuing a bill of tampering charges and the wires of said bill was impugned by the petitioner by instituting suit for declaration and perpetual injunction in which application under Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was also made praying that the respondent be restrained from disconnecting the energy connection of the petitioner due to non-payment of questioned amount. The application was contested by the respondent legally as well as on facts. However, the learned Civil Court vide order dated 7-5-2011 accepted the stay application subject to deposit of half of questioned bill along with current bill, which order was assailed by the respondent before the learned District Court and vide impugned judgment, appeal preferred by present respondent was accepted resulting in dismissal .Of application for grant of temporary injunction.
3. Heard.
' Learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that petitioner is consuming the gas since long but there is no allegation at all against the petitioner regarding tampering of the meter and as such one fine morning impugned bill was issued requiring the petitioner to pay the amount in lacs which was against facts and result of malice in fact. Submitted that in view of direction issued by the learned trial Court vide order dated 7-5-2011 accepting the application for grant of temporary injunction, the petitioner deposited half of questioned amount and ultimately he has paid Rs,7,95,000 in cash while submitting surety, band to the extent of remaining amount as per direction of this Court and as such impugned judgment be set aside.
' Submitted that matter was referred to the review committee but nothing has been heard regarding the decision of said committee.
' On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent maintained that petitioner was issued bill as the meter was tampered with by him and after sending the meter to the central meter workshop Lahore and in view of report of the said workshop impugned bill was issued to the petitioner requiring him to pay the amount questioned by the petitioner. Submitted that no doubt matter was referred to the review committee bit after associating the petitioner, the review committee repelled the contention of petitioner. Contended that an application was made at the instance of petitioner addressed to General Manager, S. N. G. P. L. Faisalabad undertaking to deposit 40% of the questioned bill in lump-sum with permission to pay the remaining amount in instalments after decision of review committee admitting the decision. Further maintained that since the petitioner . Was required to pay certain and specific amount, therefore, the temporary injunction could not have been granted restraining the respondent to disconnect the connection of the petitioner due to non-payment of questioned amount. Help was sought from the dictum laid down in "NASIR GLASS FACTORY v. S.N.G.P.L." (2007 YLR 217) and S.B. INDUSTRIES PAK. LTD. v. .SUI NORTHEREN GAS" (PLD 1995 Lahore 117).
4. The petitioner has questioned the wires of impugned bill categorically denying the factum of tampering the meter while on the other hand, the stance taken at the instance of respondent is that the meter was tampered with and the same was sent to the. Central meter workshop, Lahore and in view of report of said workshop, impugned bill was sent to the petitioner. Keeping in view the divergent stance at the instance of adversaries, serious question of fact has to be adjudicated upon by the learned trial Court and as such petitioner got a prima facie case. The petitioner prayed for issuance of temporary injunction restraining the respondent from disconnecting his connection due to non-payment of questioned bill. It is the case of present petitioner that a sum of Rs,7,95000 has been deposited in cash while surety bond has been submitted to the rest of the amount.
Admittedly surety bond by itself would not be sufficient to protect the interest of respondent and as such while disposing the revision petition, petitioner is directed to submit bank guarantee to the extent of remaining amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court within a period of one month from the date of order. In case of failure on the part of petitioner to submit bank guarantee to the extent of remaining amount, the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1,2 of The Code of Citiy Procedure, 1908 shall be deemed to have been dismissed without any formal order in this regard.