Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 4443
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi)
Parties: Haji Maqsood Ahmad vs Sui Gas Pipelines Limited
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi), officially reported as 2026 LHC 4443. In this matter between Haji Maqsood Ahmad and Sui Gas Pipelines Limited, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi) DECISION DATE: 23-06-2026 CASE DETAILS: First Appeal Against Order(F.A.O.) 39126/25 ============================================================ Stereo. H C J D A-38. JUDGMENT SHEET IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
F.A.O.No.39126 of 2025
Haji Maqsood Ahmad Versus Sui Gas Pipeline Limited Lahore J U D G M E N T Date of hearing: 23.06.2026. Appellant by: M/s. Abdul Ghafoor Sheikh and Tayyab Mumtaz Qureshi, Advocates. Respondent by: Mr. Muhammad Nadeem Butt, Advocate.
MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J .- Through this First Appeal Against Order, the appellant has assailed the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the learned Addition al District Judge/Gas Utility Court, Lahore, whereby its application seeking setting aside of the ex parte judgment and decree dated 07.0 1.2019 was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned order is contrary to law and the material available on record. He submits that the appellant was never duly served in the suit culminating in the ex parte decree and had no knowledge thereof until 01.05.2023, whereafter the application under Order IX Rule 13, C.P.C. was instituted withou t any delay on 03.05.2023. He further argues that the learned Gas Utility Court dismissed the application solely on the ground of limitation without first determining the foundational question whether summons had at all been duly served. He argues that the issue of knowledge was a seriously disputed question of fact which could not legally be decided merely on the basis of arguments without framing appropriate issues and recording evidence. He further submits that the respondent had instituted the subsequen t suit 2 F.A.O.No.39126 of 2025 despite pendency of an earlier suit between the parties relating to the same consumer connection and substantially the same dispute, but the said fact was allegedly withheld from the Court, rendering the allegations of concealment and suppression of material facts worthy of judicial inquiry. He lastly contends that even during execution proceedings the respondent repeatedly failed to pursue service of the appellant, resulting in dismissal of the execution petition for non-prosecution, which circumstance prima facie lends support to the appellant's plea that it had no prior knowledge of the decree. 3. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order and submits that the application under Order IX Rule 13, C.P.C. was hopelessl y barred by time. He contends that the appellant had acquired knowledge of the ex parte decree at least on 16.11.2020 when a certified copy of the decree was exhibited as Ex.D -7 in another suit pending between the parties. He argues that the application fi led in May, 2023 was, therefore, clearly beyond limitation and rightly dismissed by the learned Court below. 4. Arguments heard. Available record perused. 5. The principal controversy revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 8 of th e Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 read with Order IX Rule 13, C.P.C. The statutory scheme clearly envisages two distinct situations: first, where summons have been duly served, limitation is computed from the date of the decree; secondly, where summons have not been duly served, limitation commences from the date when the defendant had knowledge of the decree. Thus, before rejecting an application on the ground of limitation, the Court is under a legal obligation to determine whether the summons had in fact been duly served. Such determination constitutes the very foundation for deciding limitation. 3 F.A.O.No.39126 of 2025 6. A careful reading of the impugned order reveals that although the learned Court below observed that summons had been issued through ordinary proce ss, registered post and publication, it did not undertake any meaningful examination of the legality or sufficiency of such service. The order is conspicuously silent regarding the process server's report, postal acknowledgements, returned envelopes, publication record or the circumstances which necessitated resort to substituted service. Nor has the learned Court recorded its satisfaction regarding compliance with the mandatory requirements of Order V, C.P.C. Mere reproduction of the modes through which su mmons were allegedly issued cannot be equated with a judicial finding that the defendant had been duly served in accordance with law. 7. Equally significant is the fact that the appellant specifically denied knowledge of the proceedings and pleaded that i t came to know of the ex parte decree only on 01.05.2023. The respondent, on the other hand, asserted that knowledge stood established from Ex.D-7 exhibited in another suit on 16.11.2020. Evidently, the precise date of knowledge was seriously disputed. Suc h controversy is essentially a mixed question of law and fact which ordinarily cannot be conclusively determined merely on the basis of arguments of the learned counsel. It necessarily requires proper inquiry, framing of the relevant point for determinatio n and, where required, recording of evidence enabling the parties to substantiate their respective assertions. The learned Court below, however, proceeded to presume knowledge solely on the basis that Ex.D -7 had been exhibited in another proceeding without examining whether the appellant was personally present, whether its counsel had inspected the document, whether a copy thereof had been supplied or whether the appellant had otherwise acquired actual knowledge of the decree on the said date. Such presumption, in the peculiar facts of the case, appears to have been drawn without adequate factual foundation. 4 F.A.O.No.39126 of 2025 8. The appellant had further alleged that an earlier suit involving the same consumer connection and substantially the same dispute had been pending si nce the year 2013 wherein issues had already been framed and evidence had been recorded, yet the respondent instituted the subsequent suit without disclosing the pendency of the earlier proceedings. Whether such allegations are ultimately proved or otherwise is not for this Court to determine at this stage. Nevertheless, these allegations undoubtedly raised substantial questions touching upon suppression of material facts, abuse of process and the possible impact of the earlier litigation upon the maintaina bility of the subsequent proceedings. Surprisingly, the learned Court below did not advert to these pleas at all, nor did it examine whether they necessitated any inquiry before dismissing the application on limitation alone. 9. Likewise, the appellant ha s relied upon the subsequent conduct of the respondent in execution proceedings, asserting that despite repeated opportunities the respondent failed to pursue service upon the judgment-debtor, ultimately resulting in dismissal of the execution petition. Wh ether such conduct has any bearing upon the appellant's plea regarding want of knowledge is again a matter requiring appreciation by the Court of first instance after considering the complete record. The learned Court below omitted to examine this aspect altogether. 10. It is by now a settled principle of law that procedural rules are intended to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. An ex parte decree undoubtedly carries sanctity; nevertheless, where its very foundation, namely due service of summons, is seriously disputed, the Court is required to undertake a careful inquiry before non -suiting the applicant on a technical ground of limitation. Equally settled is the proposition that where limitation itself depends upon the disputed date of kn owledge, the Court should refrain from deciding such question merely on assumptions or presumptions unsupported by proper inquiry. 5 F.A.O.No.39126 of 2025 11. In the present case, the learned Gas Utility Court proceeded to dismiss the application primarily on limitation without first recording clear findings regarding due service, without undertaking any inquiry into the disputed date of knowledge, without examining the allegations relating to concealment of the earlier litigation and without appreciating the effect, if any, of t he subsequent execution proceedings. The impugned order, therefore, reflects non-reading of material aspects of the record and failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Court to determine the foundational factual controversies before deciding limitation. 12. Consequently, I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 24.04.2025 cannot be sustained in law. However, since the questions relating to due service, date of knowledge, limitation and the allegations regarding concealment involve di sputed factual issues which have not yet been investigated by the learned Court below, it would not be appropriate for this Court to record conclusive findings thereon for the first time in appellate jurisdiction. 13. In view of the foregoing, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.04.2025 is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the learned Additional District Judge/Gas Utility Court, Lahore, for a fresh decision on the appellant's application under Order IX Rule 13, C.P.C. , in accordance with law , by means of a reasoned and speaking order, without being influenced by any tentative observations made herein, preferably within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The learned Court shall afford both pa rties a fair and adequate opportunity to adduce evidence, if considered necessary, and shall thereafter determine, inter alia, the following questions: (i) Whether the summons were duly served upon the appellant in accordance with law; 6 F.A.O.No.39126 of 2025 (ii) The actual dat e on which the appellant acquired knowledge of the ex parte judgment and decree; (iii) The effect, if any, of the allegations regarding concealment or non -disclosure of the earlier litigation, as well as the other pleas raised by the parties; and (iv) Any other ancillary or consequential issues arising therefrom. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy, and all questions of fact and law shall remain open for determination by the learned Gas Utility Court.
(Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi) Judge
APPROVED FOR REPORTING
Judge
*Sultan*