SNGPL VS PAF etc

ORDER SHEET

IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

F.A.O. No.226 of 2019 Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd.

Versus PAF Hotel

S. No. of order Date of order/ Order with signature of Judge and that of parties or counsel / proceedings Proceedings where necessary. 04 07.11.2024 Ch. Hafeez ullah Yaqoob, Mr. Tauqeer Ahmed Raja, Raja M. Mudassir Iqbal and Ms. Zaitoon Hafeez, Advocates for the appellant.

Through the instant appeal, the appellant, Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd., impugns the order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the Gas Utility Court / learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad, whereby the plaint in the appellant’s suit for recovery of Rs.77,289/- was returned by invoking the provisions of Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).

2.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that although the gas meter with respect to which the claim was made was in Murree, but since the office of the appellant / plaintiff was located in industrial area, Sector I-9, Islamabad, the Gas Utility Court at Islamabad had the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the suit instituted by the appellant. He relied on Section 4 of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 (“the 2016 Act”) and submitted that the Court having jurisdiction under the said Act was the Gas Utility Court having jurisdiction in the place in which the gas utility company, consumer, gas producer or offender, as the case may be, is situated; and that since the

said Act has an overriding effect over the provisions of the CPC, the learned Court below erred in returning the plaint in the suit filed by the appellant before the Gas Utility Court at Islamabad. Learned counsel for the appellant prayed for the appeal to be allowed and for the impugned order dated 22.10.2019 to be set-aside.

3.I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record with his able assistance.

4.Section 20 CPC contains a general rule regarding territorial jurisdiction which inter alia provides that a suit must be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or personally works for gain, or where the cause of action wholly or in part arises.

5.The appellant’s suit is based for the recovery of the gas bills which the respondent defaulted in paying. The learned Civil Court rejected the plaint in the suit by holding that the gas utility Court at District Rawalpindi would have jurisdiction in the matter. When the cause of action accrued to the appellant, Murree was a Tehsil of District Rawalpindi.

6.The elementary principle regarding jurisdiction is that the plaintiff seeks the defendant, which means that the plaintiff is to sue the defendant before a Court in the territorial jurisdiction whereof the defendant resides or works or carries on business or works for gain or where the cause of action

accrues. Section 4 of the 2016 Act does not, in my view, vest jurisdiction in the Gas Utility Court where the plaintiff resides to adjudicate upon a suit irrespective of the requirements of Section 20 CPC. Indeed, if a consumer is to sue a gas utility company, the suit will have to be instituted in the place in which the gas utility company is situated. But where the gas utility company is to sue a consumer, it will be at the place where the consumer is situated. In the instant case, the gas meter with respect to which the recovery notice was issued is installed at Murree and the address of the respondent as given in the plaint as well as in the instant appeal is also at Murree.

7.In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.

(MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB)

JUDGE

Ahtesham*