Petitioner, Muhammad Shafiq, feeling aggrieved by Gas Bill for the month of December, 2811 amounting to Rs,387,900/- instituted a suit for declaration with permanent injunction against the respondents before the learned Civil Judge, Lahore. In response to summons the respondents entered appearance before the, learned trial Court and contested the suit by filing written statement. The learned trial Court while disposing of petitioner's application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2, CPC vide order dated 8.3.2013, directed the respondents to restore gas supply to the petitioner's premises subject to payment of monthly gas consumption charges. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 8.3.2013, the Sui Northern Gas Pipe Lines (Respondent No, 1) filed a revision petition under Section 115, CPC. The learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore vide orders dated 9.4.2013 disposed of the revision and modified the order o learned trial Court in the following terms:-- "The impugned order prima facie is defective on this score Hence is modified that the respondent must deposit the consumption, liability to the tune of Rs, 1,93,404/- under protest with the Sui Gas Department and then his restoration of connection be made, according to the direction passed in the impugned order and the amount of Rs, 1,87,756/- levied on the tempering of Meter is also a liability which is not acceptable to respondent, on this score the respondent must amend his pleadings according to new grounds, available to him relating with the bill of December, 2012 as explained by the Sui Gas department and thus the learned trial Court may proceed further on the subject. If any grievance is still available to the respondent side then learned trial Court will procure his version in writing before itself and after giving opportunity to the Sui Gas Department, for hearing on the subject will pass an order. So any aspect of the matter which is not attended by the Court may be re addressed."
Through the petition in hand, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 9.4.2013, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge.
2. Since a short question is involved, this petition is heard today as a pacca matter.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged a sole ground that the learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore without issuing any notice and affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner could not modify the order dated 8.3.2013, passed by the learned trial Court. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents though admits that the learned Addl. District Judge has passed the impugned order without issuing any notice to the petitioner yet submits that this irregularity does not vitiate the impugned order.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Violation of principle of natural justice is a valid ground for assailing a revisional order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge before this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. It is an elementary principle of natural justice that no party can be bound by an order passed behind his back. Principle of natural justice is implied in all provisions of Civil Procedure Code, that an order which affects a party is to be passed only after notice to him. In this regard it would be apposite to cite following extract from the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Commissioner of income Tax, East Pakistan vs. Saeedur Rehman" (PLD 1964 SC 410):-- "We don't think the mere absence of a provision as to notice can override the principle of natural justice that an order affecting the rights of a party cannot be passed without an opportunity of hearing to that arty. A reference' to provision in other statute will show that the existence of a provision of notice as to one proceeding has not been accepted as an argument against the need of notice in the case of proceeding with respect to which there is no express provision of notice.
Under the Criminal Procedure Code there is a distinct provision in the case of an appeal for notice of hearing to the appellant, but there is no such provision in the case of a revision petition in the High Court. It cannot be urged, however, that the right of hearing in a revision petition has thereby been excluded. In the Civil Procedure Code similarly there is a provision in Order XLI, Rule 22 directing notice of the hearing of appeal to be given to the appellant and, there is no such provision with respect to a proceeding under Section 115, CPC, yet it cannot be said that it is not necessary to hear the parties affected in a proceeding under Section 115, CPC. The fact that the proceedings are judicial or quasi-judicial in nature is sufficient to entitle a party to a hearing in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary".
In the instant case, the learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore has passed the impugned order without issuing notice to the petitioner. This is a clear violation of the principle of natural justice and depicts that the learned Addl. District Judge has exercised the jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. Thus, the order impugned in this petition being illegal is not sustainable in the eye of law.
6. Without going in other questions raised in this petition, I am inclined to allow this petition on the basis of aforesaid preliminary substantial question of law, raised by the petitioner. The impugned order dated 9.4.2013 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore is set aside and declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore is directed to decide the revision petition afresh on merits and after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties to the revision petition. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore on 27.6.2013.