Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: TALLAT MAHBOOB VS Respondent: SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPE LINES LTD. through General Manager, Distribution Officer, Sargodha Road, Faisalabad
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Mian Saqib Nisar Title:TALLAT MAHBOOB vs SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPE LINES LTD. through General
Manager, Distribution Officer, Sargodha Road, Faisalabad Case No.: Civil Revision No, 1137 of 2009 Date of Judgment:2009-12-14 Reported As: 2010 MLD 690 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment ORDER MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The petitioner filed a suit for the declaration claiming that he has procured the gas connection by bearing all the expenses from the main pipeline of the respondent- Department to his CNG Filling Station, which (pipeline) is owned by him and that respondent No, 1 should not be permitted to give the connection to a third party (respondent/defendant No, 2). The suit was accompanied by an application for the grant of temporary injunction, which has been refused by the learned trial Court vide order, dated 4-2-2009 and the appeal of the petitioner has also failed on 6-6-2009. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the grant of gas connection to respondent No, 2 is violative of the policy of the respondent-Department. When confronted, the learned counsel for respondent No, 1 has placed on the record an agreement, dated 29-11-2007 between the petitioner and the respondent-Department which contains the following stipulation: "(4) Proprietary rights of the gas pipelines and its maintenance will rest with Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited and it will have the right to supply through this system as its own cost and without any compensation to Messrs Sumandri CNG Filling Station, to any other consumer(s) and to the adjoining localities including any extension(s) of the system that may be necessary for this purpose." ' Obviously, in the light of above, the petitioner is estopped by his own conduct, and on account of the clear and unambiguous stipulation is precluded to maintain a cause of action. Therefore, no case is made out for interference in the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.