ABID HUSSAIN CHA TTHA, J.----The brief facts of this case are that the Petitioner filed a suit for declaration, and permanent injunction with consequential relief against the Respondents (SNGPL ) on 07.07.2018 and the SNGPL , has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,254,7581- against the Petitioner . Both suits are consolidated on 20.06.2019 which are pending adjudication before the Special Judge, Gas Utility Court, Gujranwala under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 (the "Act of 2016 "). In the said suit, the Petitioner filed an application, seeking interim relief to the effect that the SNGPL be restrained from disconnecting the gas connection installed at the premises of the Petitioner and from encashing the Bank guarantee of Rs.1,515,971/-. The injunctive order was initially passed by the trial Court on 09.07.2018, extended on 16.07.2018 but vacated on 16.02.2021, in the absence of the counsel for the Petitioner on the ground that it was passed against the spirit of Section 29 of the Act of 2016. On 02.03.2021, the Petitioner filed an application for recalling of order dated 16.02.2021 which was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 15.04.2021. Through the instant Petition, the Petitioner has challenged orders dated 16.02.2021 and 15.04.2021, passed by learned trial Court.
2. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the Petitioner candidly conceded that the gas connection was disconnected in 2018 and the Petitioner does not require the gas connection for the time being.
However , the Petitioner requires injunction regarding encashment of Bank guarantee lying with SNGPL since no outstanding amount is payable by the Petitioner . The said Bank guarantee is not on the record, however , the learned counsel for the Petitioner was confronted that the Bank guarantee is usually submitted with an expiry date and claim lodgment date and if not encashed within specified time, it may expire. Further , the Bank guarantee cannot be stayed. Reliance in this behalf is placed on case titled Shipyard K. Damen International v. Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Ltd., PLD 2003 SC 191. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there are no outstanding dues payable by the Petitioner . Therefore, if the Bank guarantee is encashed, he will suffer irreparable loss.
3. Learned counsel for the SNGPL has not submitted any specific figure payable by the Petitioner . However , he relies on suit for recovery filed by SNGPL against the Petitioner to submit that the filing of the said suit for recovery of Rs.3,254,758/- on 18.12.2018 against the Petitioner itself testifies that the account of the Petitioner has not yet settled and aforesaid amount is recoverable subject to the decision of the Court in the suit for declaration filed by the Petitioner and the suit for recovery filed by SNGPL. It will be lawfully determ ined as to what is the ultimate amount payable, if any , by the Petitioner to SNGPL or otherwise.
4. No restraining order is passed against the encashment of Bank guarantee. The SNGPL is at liberty to encash the Bank guarantee in its discretion. However , if the SNGPL encahses the Bank guarantee, the amount of encashed Bank guarantee, if any, shall be deposited with the Gas Utility Court under Section 29(1) of the Act of 2016. The amount so deposited shall be invested in the scheduled Bank in the name of SNGPL on an undertaking furnished by the SNGPL to the effect that in case the pending suits are decided against it, it shall be paid to the Petitioner , as the case may be, with reaso nable returns as the Gas Utility Court may determine, as required under Section 29(2) of the Act of 2016. This amount will be utilized in execution of the decree that may be eventually passed in the pending consolidated suits by the parties against each other as determined by the Gas Utility Court.
Further , during the pendency of the consolidated suits, if the Petitioner applies for restoration of the gas supply , Gas Utility Court is empowered to enhance the amount deposited above in accordance with the requirements of Section 29(1) of the Act of 2016.
5. This Petition is accepted in the above terms with the direction to the learned Gas Utility Court to conclude the trial of the suits pending adjudication, expeditiously within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order .