' ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, J.---Our this common judgment shall dispose of the instant appeal as well as F.A.O. No,41-P/2013 titled "Managing Director SNGPL etc. v. M/s. Neelab CNG Filling Station through its Managing Director" though both are arising out of two different orders of the same trial court, but facts and controversy involved in both the appeals as well as the parties, are the same, therefore are taken jointly. In the instant appeal the order of learned Civil Judge-VI, Peshawar, dated 2-7-2013, allowing application filed by the respondent/plaintiff for temporary injunction qua restoration of Sui Gas supply to Neelab CNG Filling Station subject to deposit of double instalment of Rs,1000,000/- within fifteen (days, has been challenged while in F.A.O. No,41-P/2013, order dated 17-6-2013, of the trial court allowing application of the respondent/plaintiff for removal of disputed amount and issuance of current bill for the month of May, 2013 and deposit of disputed outstanding amount in instalment has been assailed.
2. The resume of the facts, forming the background of the instant appeal is that, respondent- plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the sui-gas bills since April 2009, till October, 2009, issued by the defendants/appellants qua aforesaid CNG Filling Station, being based on presumption and estimation are illegal and ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiff/respondent.
Permanent injunction restraining the petitioners/defendants permanently from demanding the amount of the impugned bills and not to disconnect the sui gas supply of the Filling Station has also been sought. It is averred in the plaint that Neelab CNG Filling Station situated in Chughal Pura Ring Road, Peshawar is being run by the plaintiff which became functional on 17th April 2009; that before issuance of Sui gas bill for the month of April, 2009, the plaintiff submitted an application to defendant No,2 for replacing the gas meter being defective, as a result, estimated bill for the month of April 2009 was issued, which was accordingly deposited by him. Later on, the meter of the Filling Station was removed, without installation of substitute meter, and again an estimated bill for the month of May, 2009, was issued which was in excess of the consumption of the Filling Station. This practice of the defendants/appellants allegedly remained in field till October 2009, as consecutive bills in excess amount based on mere estimation without taking meter reading and considering the actual consumption of the plaintiff's Filling Station, have been issued, which are illegal and in effective upon the rights of the plaintiff. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff also filed two applications for temporary injunction i,e, one in respect of restoration of sui gas supply to petitioner's CNG Filling Station and the other qua issuance of regular monthly bill without surcharge. The applications were contested by the appellants by filing written reply. The learned trial court, after hearing both the sides, vide impugned orders, allowed both the applications. Hence, these appeals.
3. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties heard at length and record perused with their assistance.
4. It is settled principle of law that there are three essential ingredients for grant of temporary injunction which must co-exist in favour of the applicant i,e, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The applicant is to prove the prima facie existence of the right claimed in the suit and also its infringement. Thereafter, the court would require to see as to whether the applicant will suffer more inconvenience by withholding of the injunction than that which the respondent would by the granting of it. The court is required to weigh the mischief to either party i,e, to the applicant, if refused, and the respondent, if allowed, and will grant the injunction only if the balance is in favour of the applicant. Similarly, for getting injunction order, the applicant is bound to prove that in case of refusal of injunction he/she will suffer irreparable damage or injury. The terms "Irreparable loss" does not refer to damage which cannot be physically repaired but to such material injury as cannot be adequately compensated. Whether the loss is ascertainable in terms of money, it is not a case of irreparable loss. As B such where pecuniary compensation is an adequate relief injunction, will not be granted. Damage as an alternate relief are relevant only where the granting of an injunction would be oppressive to the other side.
5. In view of the above settled law, the record of the instant case is searched from corner to corner, which divulged that Industrial gas connection was given to the Filling Station of the respondent/plaintiff on 14-4-2009 vide Meter No,00443429. It is asserted by the appellants in their written statement that since old meter bearing No,20710584 of the plaintiff's Filling Station was defective, therefore, was replaced on 14-5-2009. On the basis of defective and sticky meter, the plaintiff was over charged for 1633 hm3 on estimated basis and such estimated charge volume was revised keeping in view sixty days consumption of new meter of the respondent/plaintiff, the rebate adjustment of which has been given in the bill of October, 2009. It is manifest from the bill of October, 2010 that case of the plaintiff has been reviewed finalized and the rebate adjustments has been made. The perusal of bills brought on record shows that plaintiff is casual in paying the bills and habitual of part payment of the bill. The net total amount of Rs,9381160/- is still outstanding against him. Record further divulged that huge amount is still outstanding against the plaintiff. The plaintiff has failed to show any irreparable loss in case of refusal of injunction rather there seems strong C apprehension of damage/injury to the appellants/defendants in case of non-deposit of the outstanding amount. The balance of convenience also tilts in favour of the defendants/appellants, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. On the other hand, appellants have refuted the contentions of the respondent, raised in the plaint, which require evidence in proof thereof. Besides that, if the applications for grant of temporary injunction, are allowed it would amount to grant of main relief sought in the plaint. It is settled law that such like interim relief of D temporary injunction cannot be granted, which amounts to grant of the final relief; prayed in the suit.
6. For what has been discussed above, the learned trial court over-sighted the material aspects of the case and the law on the subject while deciding the applications of the respondent/plaintiff and reached to a wrong conclusion while passing the impugned orders which are not sustainable.
7. Moreso, apart from merits of the case, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff after arguing the case at some length expressed his no objection on acceptance of both the appeals and setting-aside of the impugned orders provided the learned trial court decides the case on priority basis particularly on day to day hearing, within a period of two months. Learned counsel for the appellants agreed with the request of the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff and has got no objection on early disposal of the case.
8. In view of the above, we allow both the appeals set aside the impugned orders dated 17-6-2013 and 2-7-2013, respectively, and direct the learned trial court to decide the case on merits in accordance with law within a period of two months. Needless to mention that learned counsel for the parties shall render co-operation and leave no stone un-turned in early disposal of the case within a period specified above. On acceptance of both the appeals, C.M. No, 302-P/2013 in FAOP No,40-P/2013 and C.M. No,303-P/2013 in FAO No,41-P/2013, have become infructuous, which stand dismissed as such.