The accumulative bill issued by the appellant for the period of December , 2009 to May 2011 was challenged by the respondent through a suit for declaration alongwith mandatory injunction befor e the Judge Gas Utility Court, Faisalabad, under the provisions of The Gas (Theft, Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, which was partly decreed by the learned trial Court in the following terms: "Nut shell of above discussion is that, suit filed by plaintif f is partially decreed in way that defendant gas company is not entitled to recover price of gas of 238 HM3 for impugned meter as per Exh.P2 at a cumulative slab rate for whole consumed gas rather defendant gas company is entitled to recover price of gas consumed by plaintif f from December , 2009 to 30.03.201 1, while dividing whole gas quantity consumed for that period on monthly basis and then as per slab rate for the gas consumed in each month separately . The defenda nt gas company is also liable to recover the price of gas consumed by plaintiff from 30.03.201 1 to 27.07.2014 as reflected in Exh.C5 and that was calculated to be gas consumed as 48.25HM3. The defendant gas company may recover the bill amount as per consumption after the month of July, 2014. The defendant gas company is further directed to adjust paid amount of Rs. 100,000/-by plaintif f as per Court orders, while calculating the gas price for "periods mentioned above. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly . Ahlmad of this Court, is directed to consign the file to record room after its due completion and compilation."
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through record of the case. The claim of the respondent to issue/charge him with consumption month-wise bill has force because otherwise on account of charging him accumulative total consumption' of the default period the slab rate will increase causing him a huge loss. The learned trial Court rightly increase the prayer of the plaintif f/respondent considering it reasonable/plausible, hence, not committed any illegality warranting interference, therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court as the same is in consonance with law and facts of the case warranting no interference by this Court; hence, this appeal having no merit stands dismissed. No order as to costs.