SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LIMITED vs TAJUDDIN WAQAR SHAIKH Ss — 2025 CLC 1629 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LIMITED VS TAJUDDIN WAQAR SHAIKH Ss. 6, 7 & 13---Gas theft, allegation of---Suit for recovery---Dismissal of suit on the basis of acquittal of accused in a related criminal case---Legality---Judgment acquitting the accused in a criminal case is not binding on civil matters and does not preclude institution and prosecution of a civil suit for recovery of dues---Civil and criminal proceedings---Distinct standard of proof---Appellant/Sui Southern Gas Company Limited (SNGPL), filed a summary suit for recovery against the respondent under S. 6 of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 (the Act) alleging gas theft---The appellant claimed that during an inspection the respondent's gas meter was found tampered with, having a broken index and glass---A joint gas load survey was conducted, and the meter was replaced---The meter was later tested in respondent's presence and again found tampered---An FIR was lodged, and the appellant's claim assessment committee determined a loss of Rs. 439,700/---The appellant prayed for recovery of the amount and other reliefs, however, the Trial Court dismissed the suit in limine, citing the respondent's acquittal in the related criminal case---Pivotal question for determination by the High Court was as to "Whether a civil suit for recovery was maintainable under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, despite the acquittal of the accused in the corresponding criminal proceedings?"---Held: The standard of proof in criminal proceedings (beyond a reasonable doubt) was distinct from the standard of proof in civil proceedings (preponderance of probability)---Acquittal of an accused in a criminal case did not, in itself, preclude the institution and successful prosecution of a civil suit for the recovery of dues---Consequently, the findings of a criminal court were not determinative of the outcome in a civil court addressing related matters---The determinations rendered in criminal proceedings did not ipso facto dictate the adjudication of civil liabilities---In the present case, the Trial Court dismissed the suit in limine based solely on the acquittal of the respondent in the criminal case, without considering the merits of the civil claim or adhering to the due procedure as laid down under Ss. 6 & 7 of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016---Section 6 of the Act authorizes both consumers and gas utility companies to file cases before gas utility courts under applicable civil or criminal procedure laws, supported by relevant documents such as gas bills or service agreements---It outlines the procedural requirements for institution of the suits, including specific content to be included in the plaint, particularly for utility companies, and establishes methods for serving summons through personal delivery, postal or courier services, and newspaper publication---Section 7 governs the defendant's right to contest the suit by mandating an application for leave to defend within 21 days of service---This application must be accompanied by a written statement identifying legal or factual disputes and supported by relevant documents---Failure to file such an application, or to meet its requirements, allows the Court to treat the claims as admitted and pass a decree accordingly---The Court may grant leave to defend only if substantial questions of law or fact are raised, and may impose conditions such as the deposit of claimed dues---Utility Court is also empowered to frame issues relating to such substantial questions, attach conditions to the grant of leave, and record evidence on those issues---In these circumstances, the approach adopted by the Trial Court was contrary to the spirit and intent of law---Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court was unsustainable in law and could not be upheld---Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the suit was remanded to the trial court to be decided afresh on its own merits, strictly in accordance with the procedure stipulated under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, and in adherence to the principles of natural justice---Appeal was accepted, in circumstances.

SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LIMITED vs TAJUDDIN WAQAR SHAIKH Ss — 2025 CLC 1629 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC