' MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.---Through this civil revision, petitioner has assailed orders dated 2-6-2010 and 4-6-2010 passed by learned Civil. Court as well as learned appellate Court.
2. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming that he got a commercial sui gas connection in the name of his father and is depositing the bills for energy consumed and never committed any -default, respondent intends to disconnect petitioner's sui gas supply on the basis of alleged tampering report. Learned trial Court framed issues, recorded evidence and suit was dismissed on 2-6-2010.
3. The petitioner assailed the said judgment and decree through an appeal, learned appellate court on 4-6-2010 passed order on an application for temporary relief and learned appellate Court directed the petitioner to deposit the disputed amount of Rs,1,11,988 on or before 12-6-2010. The petitioner has assailed order dated 4-6-2010.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the amount in dispute has been assessed without hearing the petitioner, the petitioner as a matter of right is entitled to notice before ascertaining the fact of tampering of meter. He further submits that petitioner has already deposited Rs,55,994 under the orders of Civil Court. The suit was dismissed and appeal was admitted for regular hearing, hence, learned appellate Court was not justified to direct petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs,1,11,988 an ex parte ascertained amount.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is not their consumer, the petitioner tampered the meter and claim of Rs,1,67,000 was found payable by the petitioner. The petitioner has deposited Rs,55,994 under the orders of Civil Court and balance amount is payable. The suit was dismissed and learned appellate Court was justified to pass the impugned order directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs,1,11,988. He further submits that no irreparable loss will be caused to petitioner in case petitioner will deposit the amount. He further submits that petitioner was again found utilizing energy by tampering meter on 3-1-2012. An F.I.R. Has been registered against consumer.
6. Heard. Record perused.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner admits that petitioner is not the consumer but he states that consumer is his father. He admits that he is not having any authority on behalf of his father to utilize the connection sanctioned in favour of his father. He further admits that when he filed suit he was not the attorney on behalf of his father.
8. It is an admitted fact that the amount subject matter of appeal is allegedly due against the consumer, it is yet to be decided by the appellate Court whether the suit was rightly filed by the petitioner without the permission of consumer and as such learned appellate Court has rightly directed the petitioner to deposit the amount in Court, in case the petitioner deposit the amount the same will be refunded to him if his appeal succeeds.
9. As the order passed by learned appellate court was perfectly in accordance with law, the revision petition has no force and is dismissed accordingly.