IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.

C.R. No.____________/2002

Shamim & Co (Pvt) Ltd. Vs. WASA, etc.

INDEX
S. No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES
1 Urgent Form & Opening sheet
2 Revision Petition
3 Affidavit
4 Copy of Payments sheet, Notification. A& B
5 Copy of Intimation Letter. C
6 Copies of Bills D&E
7 Copy of Notice & Plaint F&G
8 Copy of undertaking & Para wise H&J
comments
9 Copy of Order & Judgment K&L
10 Application for dispensation
11 Affidavit
12 Application for Interim Relief
13 Affidavit
14 Power of attorney.

PETITIONER,
Dated: __________

Through: -
Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

C.R. No.____________/2002

Shamim & Company (Pvt) Ltd. Jail Road Multan, through

Zafar Ullah Khan, Manager, Public Relations.
……PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. Water & Sanitation Agency Bagh Langay Khan, Multan,
through its Managing Director.
2. Assistant Director (Revenue) WASA, 316-A, WASA House,
Shamsabad, Multan.
…RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

REVISION PETITION U/s 115 C.P.C.

against the judgment dated 20.5.02
passed by Mr. Muhammad Yousuf, the
learned Additional District Judge,
Multan, by which the order dated 5.3.02
passed by Mr. Muhammad Akram Rana
Civil Judge, Multan for issuance of
injunction till final decision of the case
was set aside and application was
declared to have been dismissed.

CLAIM IN REVISION: -
To set aside the impugned judgment
dated 20.5.02 and to restore the order
dated 5.3.02, by accepting this revision
petition.
Respectfully Sheweth: -

1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been
given for the purpose of their summons and citations.

2. That Mr. Zafar Ullah Khan is fully authorized to institute legal

proceeding for and against the Company.

3. That the brief facts giving rise to this petition, that the petitioner
has obtained a connection for sanitation purposes from
respondent No. 1 under A/c No. 063/001366. The petitioner is
paying bills issued by respondent No. 1, regularly and there is no
default on the part of petitioner at all. It is pertinent to point out
that there is no standard to ascertain the amount of bill with the
respondents. Initially w.e.f April, 1992 till September 1992 the
respondents charged Rs. 2100/-per month, but without any
reason, the respondents increased the rate from Rs. 2100/- per
month to Rs. 5,000/- per month, which was paid by the petitioner.
Subsequently, in October 1994, the rate was increased to Rs.
15,000/- per month with arrears with effect from April 1992 and
whole the amount was paid to the respondents and till then
Rs.15000/- per month is paid regularly. However, the factory of
petitioner was treated by the respondents as seasonal one as per
law, with a closing period of four months (November, December,
January & February). This closing and opening of factory was for
the necessary repairs as well. Intimation to the respondents was
always furnished by way of letters and affidavits. This exemption
was subject to physical verification of respondents. It is also
necessary to submit that whenever factory was working in four
exempted months, the bill was voluntarily paid. Payment sheets,
notification for seasonal factory and intimation letters and
affidavits are annexes “A, B & C ”.

4. That in the bill of billing month October, 2001 along with the
monthly bill and arrear of Rs.115528/- was included with out any
detail. The matter was discussed with the respondents resultantly
only the monthly regular bill for the month of October, 2001 was
 deposited and so called arrears were with-drawn. But again a bill
amounting Rs. 499642/- as arrears for period of April 1992 to
September 2001 was received to the petitioner. This matter was
again discussed with the respondents, and the same was with-
drawn, as well copies of bills are annexes “D & E “.

5. That the petitioner was astonished when a notice No. 1407 dated
1.10.2001 was received, in which an amount of Rs. 6,15,508/-
was showed to be outstanding against the petitioner for the period
April 1992 to September 2001. A grace period of 5 days was
given for the deposit of alleged outstanding amount. The matter
was thoroughly discussed with the respondents, but could not
bear any fruit and petitioner was compelled to seek remedy from
the court of law. The petitioner filed a suit in the court of Senior
Civil Judge, Multan on 1.11.2001 and the same was entrusted for
further hearing to the court of Muhammad Akram Rana on the
same day. Copy of notice and plaint are Annexes “F & G”.

6. That a notice was issued on the same day i.e. 1.11.2001 for the
next day which was duly served upon the respondents on the
same day. On the same day, a representative of respondents
(Director WASA) visited the office of the petitioner and with the
mutual consent of the parties, an undertaking was signed. Next
day on 2.11.2001, an ad-interim injunction was issued in favour
of the petitioner. On the other hand, the respondent filed a report
and parawise comments instead of filing a written statement
required under the law. This written statement was not
entertainable and the same was happened with the reply of
application. Copy of undertaking & parawise comments are
Annex “ H & J”.

7. That on 5.3.2002, the learned trial court after considering arguments

of both the parties, accepted the application for the grant of
injunction till the final disposal of the case. Copy of order is Annex
“K”.
8. That the respondent feeling aggrieved by the order dated 5.3.2002,
filed an appeal. The learned appellate court set aside the order dated
5.3.2002 passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the
application for grant of injunction vide judgment dated 20.5.2002.
Copy of judgment is Annex“
L”.

9. That the judgment dated 20.5.02 passed by the learned appellate

court is impugned and liable to be set aside inter-alia on the
following: -

GROUNDS

i) That the impugned judgment is against the natural justice

and law of equity.

ii) That the impugned judgment is against the prevailing law

and justice.

iii) That the judgment of learned appellate court is arbitrary

and perverse.

iv) That the learned appellate court could not asses the
essence of pleadings and documents on the file.

v) That the learned appellate court was duty bound to keep a

balance between the parties, but miserably failed to do so.

vi) That the learned appellate court could not take the judicial
notice of the twisting plea of the respondents.

vii) That the learned appellate court could not properly

ascertain the legal rights of the petitioner.

viii) That the learned appellate court decided the matter in

haste.
 ix) That the learned appellate court was not vigilant while
considering the notification dated 23.09.92, and decided
the case on the basis of pick & choose.

x) That the learned appellate court ignored the facts of the

case and pronounced the judgment on the wrong
perceptions.

xi) That the judgment of learned appellate court caused a

great miscarriage of justice to the petitioner.

In view of the above submissions, it is

respectfully prayed that the revision petition in hand
may please be accepted and judgment dated 20.5.02
may please be set aside and the same may please be
declared illegal, unlawful and un-warranted under the
law. The order dated 05.03.02 may please be restored.

Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems

fit may graciously be awarded in the interest of justice
and equity.
Humble Petitioner,

Dated: ________

Through: -
Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176

CERTIFICATE: -
Certified as per instructions of the client,
this is the first revision petition on the
subject matter. No such petition has earlier
been filed before this Hon’ble Court.

Advocate
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

C.R. No.____________/2002

Shamim & Company Vs WASA etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Shamim & Company (Pvt.) Ltd., Jail Road, Multan, through
Zafar Ullah Khan, Manager, Public Relations.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-titled revision petition are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
and nothing has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of August 2002 that the contents of this affidavit
are true & correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

DEPONENT
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

C.M. No. _________/2002

In
C.R. No.__________/2002

Shamim & Company Vs WASA etc.

Application U/s 151 C.P.C. for Interim Relief.

Respectfully Sheweth: -

1. That the contents of Civil Revision may please be treated as

part & parcel of this application.

2. That the impugned judgment is against the natural justice and

law of equity.

3. That the impugned judgment is against the prevailing law and

justice.

4. That the judgment of learned appellate court is arbitrary and

perverse.

5. That the learned appellate court could not properly ascertain

the legal rights of the petitioner.

6. That the learned appellate court ignored the facts of the case
and pronounced the judgment on the wrong perceptions.
7. That the illegal act of respondents for recovery will cause
irreparable loss to the applicant, and will amount to be a
double payment.

8. That the applicant has a prima facie, strong and arguable case
in their favour.

9. That the balance of convenience leans in the favour of the

applicant.

In view of the above humble submissions, it is

prayed that the operation of the judgment and decree
dated 20.05.02passed by the learned appellate court
may please be suspended till the final disposal of the
revision petition.

Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court

deems fit may graciously be awarded in the interest of
justice and equity.

Humble Applicant,

Dated: ________

Through: -
Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

C.M. No. _________/2002

In
C.R. No.__________/2002

Shamim & Company Vs WASA etc.

Application U/s151 C.P.C. for Interim Relief

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Shamim & Company (Pvt.) Ltd., Jail Road, Multan, through
Zafar Ullah Khan, Manager, Public Relations.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-titled revision petition are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
and nothing has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of August 2002 that the contents of this affidavit
are true & correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

DEPONENT
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

C.M. No. _________/2002

In
C.R. No.__________/2002

Shamim & Company Vs WASA etc.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE

FILING OF CERTIFIED COPY OF ANNEXURE.
=========================================

Respectfully Sheweth:-
That certified copy of Annexure “ ” is not
available. However, uncertified/photo state copy of the same
has been annexed with the revision petition, which is the true
copy of the original document.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copy of
the document.
APPLICANT

Dated: __________

Through: -
Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

C.M. No. _________/2002

In
C.R. No.__________/2002

Shamim & Company Vs WASA etc.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE

FILING OF CERTIFIED COPY OF ANNEXURE.
=========================================

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Shamim & Company (Pvt.) Ltd., Jail Road, Multan, through
Zafar Ullah Khan, Manager, Public Relations.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-titled revision petition are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
and nothing has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of August 2002 that the contents of this affidavit
are true & correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

DEPONENT
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

C.R. No.____________/2002

Muhammad Yaqoob Mirza Vs Mst. Muniran Bibi, etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Muhammad Yaqoob Mirza S/o Abdur Raheem, R/o
near Jame Masjid Maulvi Mehmood Wali, Layyah city.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-titled revision petition are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
and nothing has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of June 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are
true & correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.

DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

C.M. No. _________/2002

In
C.R. No.__________/2002

Muhammad Yaqoob Mirza Vs Mst. Muniran Bibi, etc.

Application U/s-151 read with Order 41, R-5 C.P.C.

Respectfully Sheweth: -

10. That the contents of Civil Revision may please be treated as

part & parcel of this application.

11. That the matter in dispute is a money matter, having precious

rights of the applicant vested in.

12. That the applicant will face irreparable loss if the interim
relief is not granted.

13. That the balance of convenience and balance of justice is in

favour of applicant, because the decision of the cases on the
bases of technicalities are deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.

14. That the applicant has a prima facie arguable case in his
favour as no one shall be condemned unheard.

15. That the case is still on the initial stages and right of any party
shall not be prejudiced.

In view of the above humble submissions, it is

prayed that proceeding in the trail court may please be
stayed/the operation of impugned order may please be
suspended till the final disposal of the main petition.

Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court

deems fit may graciously be awarded in the interest of
justice and equity.

Humble Applicant,

Dated: ________

Through: -
Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

C.M. No. _________/2002

In
C.R. No.__________/2002

Muhammad Yaqoob Mirza Vs Mst. Muniran Bibi, etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Muhammad Yaqoob Mirza S/o Abdur Raheem, R/o
near Jame Masjid Maulvi Mehmood Wali, Layyah city.
 I, the above named deponent do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-titled application are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge and belief and
nothing has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of July 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are
true & correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.

DEPONENT
 BEFORE THE AUTHORITY/CHAIRMAN REVIEW
COMMITTEE S.N.G.P.L., LAHORE.

Shamim & Company (Pvt.) Ltd. (7-up Factory), District Jail Road,
Multan.
……PETITIONER

VERSUS
1. Sui Gas Pipe Lines Ltd. Piran Ghaib Road, Multan.

2. General Manager

3. Chief Billing Officer Sui Gas Pipelines Ltd.

4. Deputy Chief Billing Officer Piran Ghaib Road,

5. Area Billing Officer Multan.

……RESPONDENTS

REFERENCE UNDER RULE 19.

a) for the correction of under-mentioned bills: -

i) From 30.11.01 to 31.12.01
ii) From 31.12.01 to 31.1.02
iii) From 31.1.02 to 28.2.02
iv) From 28.2.02 to 31.3.02
v) From 31.3.02 to 30.4.02
vi) From 30.4.02 to 31.5.02 as per
pressure
vii) From 01.6.02 to 30.6.02 of 14.5
PSIG
viii) From 30.6.02 to 31.7.02
ix) From 31.7.02 to 31.8.02
x) From 31.8.02 to 30.9.02
 xi) From 30.9.02 to 31.10.02
xii) From 01.11.02 to 30.11.02
b) to set aside the bill amounting to Rs. 12,72,106/-,

c) to re-imburse the amount after fair calculations.

Respectfully Sheweth: -

1. That the petitioner is a private limited company engaged in

the business of beverages i.e. Pepsi Cola, 7-Up and Mirinda,
the international renowned brands. The petitioner is the oldest
consumer and a regular payee, having no willful default on his
part.

2. That the petitioner received a letter No. MB/716 dated

29.6.2002 from respondent No. titled GAS USED AT
ENHANCED PRESSURE stating thereby that on 1.6.2002
while the routine checking was conducted by a team of
respondents, the meter was showing pressure of 17 PSIG
instead of 10 PSIG i.e. the sanctioned pressure. On the basis
of said checking, bills for the period detailed below were
revised: -

i) From 30.11.01 to 31.12.01

ii) From 31.12.01 to 31.1.02
iii) From 31.1.02 to 28.2.02
iv) From 28.2.02 to 31.3.02
v) From 31.3.02 to 30.4.02
vi) From 30.4.02 to 31.5.02

and an amount of Rs. 12,72,106/- was calculated on the basis of

average of last six months/difference of pressure. The petitioner was
directed to pay this amount through impugned bill. However, the bill
for next six months was also charged on 17 PSIG. Copies of bills are
attached as ANNEX “A TO A/12”.

3. That the petitioner could not get any relief instead of repeated
requests to the respondents, so left with no other remedy, the
petitioner filed a civil suit in the court of Muhammad Akram
Rana, Civil Judge Ist Class, Multan on 13.7.2002 requesting a
declaration to set aside the additional/revised amount in the
 bill. However, the controversy was not resolved till the court
of appeal.

4. That ultimately, the petitioner company was forced to file a

constitutional petition No. 7665/02 in the Hon’ble Lahore
High Court, Bench at Multan. This constitutional petition was
disposed of by His Lordship Mr. Justice Nazir Ahmad
Siddiqui vide order dated 27.9.02. The order is reproduced as
under: -

A) A technical team headed by the Deputy Chief

Engineer S.N.G.P.L. Multan shall
inspect/examine the sui gas meter in question. If
the level of the gas pressure is found 17 PSIG
(lbs), same shall be reduced to 10 PSIG (lbs) and
if the sui gas pressure is found at the level of 10
PSIG (lbs) the same shall be maintained.

B) This exercise shall be conducted in the presence

of Mr. Mansoor Ali Bukhari, a Director of the
petitioner company, who is also directed to
provide the necessary facilities in this regard to
the inspection team; and

C) This assignment shall be completed

expeditiously, preferably within a period of 3
days.

5. That in compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Court, the site

was inspected on 28.9.02. The pressure was repeatedly
examined and finally it was found 14.5 PSIC instead of 17.00
PSIC. Due to the continuous lengthy litigation, the relations
between the parties became strained, but, keeping in view the
order dated 14.10.02 passed by His Lordship Mr. Justice Ejaz
Ahmad Choudhry, the parties started negotiation and all the
disputes were settled with cordial co-operation, except the
correction of referred bills. However, the disputed bill of
Rs. 12,72,106/- is deposited under protest with the
respondents. The copy of order of High Court and copy of
 receipt of amount Rs. 12,72,106/- are ANNEX “A/13 &
A/14”.

6. That the referred bills are liable to be corrected/reviewed and

indulgence of this esteemed forum is needed inter-alia on the
following: -

GROUNDS
i) That the impugned bills and demand raised by the
respondent is violative of principles of natural justice
and is a result of ex-parte proceedings taken without
any prior notice to petitioner company in this regard nor
the representative of the petitioner company was
associated in the alleged checking of the meter.

ii) That the meter and other appliances are installed

outside the premises of the petitioner company under
control and lock & key of the respondents; and
petitioner company has no concern with the said
appliances including meter also.

iii) That there is regular checking of the meter every month

by the official of the respondents department on the
basis of which the bills are issued.

iv) That the licensee and the consumer, as per the

agreement of supply of gas, are two parties on equal
footing and none of the parties can be the judge of its
own cause as has been done in the instant case, which
violates the principles of natural justice too and the said
principle has been crystalised into four principles of
justices, i.e.

a) Opportunity for both the contesting parties to be

heard.
b) Hearing before an impartial authority so that no
one can be the judge of his own cause.
c) Decision in good faith AND
d) An orderly course of procedure.
 Apart from this, no other principle of natural justice is
known to the Islamic Jurisprudenc as well as to the
Modern Jurisprudence.

v) That the act of respondent is totally malafide and

amounts to self-enrichment and such like acts are
usually taken by most of the departments providing
utility services particularly in the month of June in
order to make their losses good; and meeting with the
limit of their own budget.

vi) That there was no lawful justification available to the

respondents to issue the impugned bills and letter dated
29.6.2002. The respondents have also threatened the
plaintiff to disconnect the supply of gas in case of non-
payment of the impugned bills, which is an act of
transgression of power not exercised in good faith and
merits to be set at naughty by this Hon’ble Court.

vii) That the stand of respondents in respect of calculation

of existing pressure as 117 PSIC is falsified by
themselves, calculating the existing pressure as 14.5
PSIC, under the direction of Hon’ble Lahore High
Court, Multan Bench.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the

bills for the months mentioned in the headnote
and onward charging with respect to pressure 17
PSIG may please be reviewed and corrected with
respect to pressure 14.5 PSIG and extra charged
amount may please be returned/re-imbursed in
favour of petitioner company.
Any other relief, order, direction, which
this esteemed forum deems fit may graciously be
extended in favour of the petitioner company in
the interest of justice and equity.

Humble Petitioner,

Dated: ________

(Shamim & Co. Pvt. Ltd.)

Through: -
Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176