SHAHID KHAN, J. Guldad Khan, the appellant, through the subject appeal has called in question the legality and validity of the order of the Utility Court i.e., learned Additional District Judge/Izafi Zilla Qazi-III, Swat, passed on 21.03.2023, vide which, dismissed the application of appellant for grant of temporary injunction with regard to disconnection of sui gas supply to his shop known as "Al-Janat Sweets and Bakers" by the respondents Nos.1 to 7.
2. Facts shortly of subject matter are that the plaintiff ("the appellant") approached to the learned trial Court through filing a civil suit against the defendants ("the respondents"), sought therein perpetual/mandatory injunctions with the request to restrain the respondents from disconnecting sui gas from his shop known as "Al-Janat Sweets and Bakers" and further sought transfer, of sui gas meter to his name from the respondent No.8 already installed to his shop referred to above.
Initially, the learned trial Court vide order dated, 28.02.2023, granted temporary injunction in favour of the appellant as follows: "Meanwhile defendants are directed not to shift the already installed meter from its existing place to any other place."
3. The respondents turned up before the learned trial Court and contested the suit. The official respondents Nos. 1 to 7 submitted their joint written statement, whereas, the private respondent No. 8 submitted his separate written statement, thereby, negated the stance of appellant. The learned trial Court after hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the application of appellant for grant of temporary injunction vide impugned order, dated 21.03.2023. It obliged the appellant to approach this Court for appropriate relief through filing the subject appeal under section 13 of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, read with section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
4. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties heard and record gone through with their valuable assistance.
5. It is transparent from the floating facts made available before this Court that the appellant has established a business of Sweets and bakers known as "Al-Jannat Sweets and Bakers" on partnership with the respondent No.8 under a deed, dated 18.04.2012 and remained intact until 31.12.2017, however, later on, the said partnership was dissolved through their private settlement and the aforesaid business was left to the appellant coupled with sui gas meter. Since the establishment of aforesaid business, the appellant is regularly paying monthly bills of the subject sui gas meter till date, on which, none of the respondents has ever made any objection. The appellant averred that though the meter in question is entered in the name of respondent No.8 but it has been left in his ownership after termination of partnership inter-se the appellant and the respondent No.8, therefore, the respondents be restrained to disconnect sui gas connection installed to his aforesaid business point and not to displace, remove or transfer the subject sui gas meter from his shop.
6. Admittedly, the respondent No.8 has remained co-partner with the appellant in the aforesaid business till 2012 and thereafter, their partnership was dissolved through their private settlement, however, he denied the factum of selling out the subject sui gas meter to the appellant and the same is still in his name. He apprised the Court that initially, he was running a restaurant known as "Faisalabad Punjab Restaurant" and the subject meter he installed thereto. Now, he has sold out the same to one Fazal Rahman in lieu of Rs.500,000/- (rupees Five hundred thousand) and they have applied for its transfer to the Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited (SNGPL), Swat. The respondents No.1 to 7 highlighted that the appellant is not their consumer and according to their official record, the subject sui gas meter was installed on the name of respondent No.8, "Muhammad Saeed, Faisalabad Punjab Restaurant Nishat Chawk Mingora Swat" situated at a distance of about 70 feet away from the existing business point of the appellant.
7. According to law, there is no second opinion about the fact that for grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 2 of the C.P.C, appellant/plaintiff is required to establish the existence of three essential ingredients i.e., a prima facie case, balance of inconvenience and irreparable loss, if, the interim injunction is not granted in his favour, however, in the given facts and circumstances of the case in hand, he has not been able to establish the aforesaid ingredients. This Court in case titled "Javed Iqbal and 5 others v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Local Government, Peshawar and 4 others" reported as 2022 CLC 502, has held as follows: - "For grant of temporary injunction, it is sine-qua-non for the petitioners/plaintiffs to have on record a prima facie case qua balance of convenience and irreparable loss with co-existence of these ingredients in their favour."
Similarly, in the case of "Shahzad Trade Links through Sole Proprietor and another v. MTW Pak Assembling Industries (Private) Limited through Representative and others" reported as 2016 CLC 83, the Sindh High Court has recorded the following observations, in respect of the fact-in- issue: - "No injunction can be issued unless all required ingredients namely prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss to aggrieved party, were found to subsist."
8. In view of what has been discussed above, learned counsel for the appellant didn't establish a case for the grant, of temporary injunction and as such, the appeal in hand stands dismissed being bereft of merits.