SHAMS MEHMOOD MIRZA, J.---This writ petition seeks to challenge order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the Gas Utility Court.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner instituted a suit for declaration with consequential relief against respondents Nos,1 and 2 under the provisions of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Ordinance, 2014 which was subsequently substituted by Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 (the Act). Along with the suit an application was filed for restoration of the gas connection. Pursuant to the summons issued by the Gas Utility Court, respondents Nos,1 and 2 entered appearance and filed their application for leave to defend in which it was, inter alia, alleged that the petitioner owed an amount of Rs,23,906,612/-. Respondents Nos,1 and 2 thereafter filed an application on 18.09.2014 under Order VI Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendments in the application for leave to defend for enhancing the overdue amount from Rs,23,906,612/- to Rs,193,202,188/-. No order on the said application was, however, passed at the relevant time. On account of the amended plaint filed by the petitioner in which the prayer clause of the original plaint was amended, respondents Nos, 1 and 2 filed another application for leave to defend on 19.06.2017 in which the liability owed by the petitioner was mentioned as Rs,23,906,612/-.
3. Respondents Nos,1 and 2 filed an application under section 29 of the Act seeking a direction from the Gas Utility Court to the petitioner for depositing the overdue amount of Rs,188,905,789. This application together with the application filed by respondents Nos,1 and 2 seeking amendment in the plaint for enhancement of overdue amount owed by the petitioner were finally taken up by the Gas Utility Court and order dated 10.10.2017 was passed whereby the said applications were allowed and respondents Nos,1 and 2 were directed to file the amended application for leave to defend and the petitioner was directed to submit bank guarantee for the overdue amount for restoration of its gas connection, hence this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a defendant by virtue of section 7 of the Act has to state the amount due up to the date of filing of the suit, which SNGPL mentioned in its written statement as Rs,23,906,612/- and in respect of which a bank guarantee was also submitted under the orders of this Court where the suit was initially filed. He thus contended that the Gas Utility Court had no jurisdiction to order the petitioner for payment of Rs,188,905,789, which was mentioned by SNGPL in its amended application for leave to defend the suit. He also objected to order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the Gas Utility Court for allowing the amendment sought by SNGPL, in its application for leave to defend.
5. Learned counsel for SNGPL, on the other hand, stated that the application for amendment was filed on 18.09.2014, which was not taken up for by the Gas Utility Court. In regard to the application for leave to defend filed on 16.06.2014, it was stated that it was filed pursuant to the amended plaint filed by the petitioner. It was pleaded that since the amendment pertained only to the prayer clause, SNGPL could only respond to the said amendment in its application for leave to defend. He also placed reliance on section 29 of the Act to justify the order passed by the Gas Utility Court requiring the petitioner to pay Rs,188,905,789/- for restoration of its gas connection.
6. Arguments heard and record perused.
7. SNGPL filed its initial application for leave to defend on 16.06.2014 and soon thereafter filed the application for amendment in it for changing the overdue amount from Rs,23,906,612/- to Rs,188,905,789/-. This application seeking amendment in the PLA could not be taken up for hearing and as such no order was passed on it till 10.10.2017. As such, order dated 10.10.2017 allowing the application filed under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. cannot be objected to by the petitioner as the quantum of overdue amount is to be proved by SNGPL subject to grant of leave by the Gas Utility Court. This much was also said by the Gas Utility Court in order dated 1'0.10.2017. Besides, the change of overdue amount does not change the complexion of defence raised by SNGPL.
8. The only question that requires determination is whether Gas Utility Court could require the petitioner at the stage of leave to pay Rs,188,905,789/- for restoration of the gas connection.
Section 29 of the Act prohibits the Gas Utility Court from making an order for restoration of gas connection in case the consumer is in default of the amount assessed against him. A number of judgments have been pronounced by this court on the said provision including judgment rendered in ICA No,486 of 2014 titled Sui Gas v. Sartaj Sizing Industry etc. in which it was held that:-- The learned Single Judge also misinterpreted the law reproduced supra by observing that until determination of the default, above provision of law cannot be invoked. We with utmost regards are unable to subscribe this view of the learned Single Judge for the reason that if the intention of the legislature was such as interpreted by the learned Single Judge then there was no need to specifically incorporate the words "the amount assessed against him by the Gas Utility Company" rather there should be words that "the amount assessed against him by the Gas Utility Court" which has not been done by the legislature.
In the circumstances, the Gas Utility Court rightly passed order dated 10.10.2017 against the petitioner requiring it to deposit Rs,188,905,789/- for restoration of its gas connection.
9. In the result, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
The Gas Utility Court is, however, directed to proceed expeditiously with the case and conclude it preferably within a period of six months.