' M/s. Khyber Wood Processing Co., Ltd., Industrial Estate Jamrud through Managing Director has preferred a suit against M/s. Sui Northern Gas Pipe Lines, Ltd., for a declaration to the effect that Letter No,SGPD/3/01, dated 29-8-1997 issued by defendant No,2 (hereafter to be referred as respondents) was illegal and inoperative against their rights with a prayer that the respondents had disconnected the Sui Gas connection to the premises of the petitioner which may be restored.
Along with the aforesaid plaint an application for temporary injunction before the trial also filed which was dismissed on 26-11-1997. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Peshawar and vide order, dated 2-7-1998 of Mr. Muhammad Azeem Khan, Additional District Judge-III, Peshawar the prayer of the petitioner was accepted and the impugned order passed by the Civil Judge, dated 26-11-1997 was set aside. The learned Additional District Judge, however, granted a temporary injunction for the restoration of Gas subject to furnishing Bank guarantee to the Trial Court in respect of the suit amount of Rs,36,66,237 as claimed by the respondents through a provisional bill. Dissatisfied with the order of the learned Additional District Judge, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition in this Court.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents on pre-admission notice.
3. The facts of the case briefly stated are that respondents 1 and 2 have brought tentative claim of Rs,36,66,237 against the petitioner without the support of the detail of the consumption of Sui Gas.
The allegations of the respondents are that they had stolen/misused the Sui Gas from domestic to commercial purpose. The record suggests that the normal consumption of the Sui Gas of the petitioner's company is to the tune of Rs,40/50 thousand per month, the detail of which is available at page 36 of the file.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner alleged that the act of the respondents (Sui Gas Company) was arbitrary in nature. No proper bill was sent to the petitioner and no rules have been cited under which they could claim the damages for the alleged theft of the Sui Gas. There was an attempt by the respondents for the registration of the case against the petitioner but so far no criminal case has been registered. He further contended that the impugned order needs interference as furnishing of Bank guarantee of the suit amount was on high side and was beyond the means of the petitioner. According to him if the Industry is closed on account of the non- fulfilment of the aforementioned obligations the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss coupled with unemployment of the labourers working therein.
' The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the - impugned order and vehemently contester the petition. According to him it is a money matter and no stay can be granted to the petitioner without proper security. He added that the impugned order was neither illegal nor without jurisdiction, therefore, he prayed that the petition may be disallowed.
5. I have gone through the record and have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the view that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Additional District Judge as security of the suit amount. The agreement of the petitioner is in respect of the harshness of the Bank guarantee which is on high side. Since the matter is yet to be adjudicated upon by the Trial Court and the amount claimed by the respondents is only tentative and is not supported by positive proof, therefore, in the interest of justice, while invoking jurisdiction under section 151, C.P.C. I partially modify the impugned order and direct that the petitioner shall furnish security of the suit amount i,e, Rs,36,66,237 to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. Since the impugned order is neither irregular or illegal, or without jurisdiction, therefore, with the aforesaid modification the petition is dismissed in limine along with C.M.