1. MUHAMMAD GUL, J.-The petitioner is Managing Director of the "Daily Market Report" a newspaper, being published from Lyallpur. For purposes of his business he has installed three telephones Nos.
2. 6332, 6336 and 6832 for the use of which he received bills for Rs.3,845.75, Rs.1,078.34 and Rs.11,497.60 respectively. He protested against these bills characterising them as false. When the department threatened to disconnect his telephones he filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the Government from recovering the aforesaid amounts and from disconnecting the three telephones for the non-payment of the said amounts. Alongwith the plaint he moved an application for temporary injunction against the recovery of the aforesaid bills and threatened disconnections of the telephones during the pendency of the suit. The application for inter--locutory injunction ended into a compromise on the basis of the statement made by the Advocate appearing for the Government, according to which the petitioner was to furnish security for the payment of the amounts in dispute and "any future amount" for the use of the three telephones, subject to the condition that if the security was not furnish d by the specified date, the application for interlocutory injunction all stand dismissed. On behalf of the department, its counsel agreed to the above settlement and the trial Court disposed of the application accordingly.
3. It is not denied that the petitioner furnished the requisite security on 30-5-1970. He, however, defaulted in payment of the bills for the three telephones for the period subsequent to the suit. As a result, the three tele--phones were disconnected. This led the petitioner to file an application for proceedings in contempt of Court against the Government and for the restoration of the telephones on the ground th4t in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, he was not liable to pay even the future bills. The prayer for proceedings in the contempt of the Court against the Government was refused. However, the learned trial Court directed restoration of the three telephones.
4. The respondent's appeal was accepted on 8-11-1971 by learned Additional District Judge who took the view that the order for maintenance of status quo even if founded on settlement between the parties could not operate as respects matters "extraneous to the suit" and that any dispute with regard to the future bills not being a subject-matter of the suit were extraneous to the suit. The petitioner filed a civil revision against the order of the learned Additional District Judge which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, vide order dated 1-12-1972.
5. We also endorse the observation in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order that if the petitioner clears off the arrears with respect to the period subsequent to the institution of the suit then the Government will consider the desirability of restoring the three telephones in accordance with the rules bearing on the subject.