1512/2009 Suit MOBIN RAFIQUE & OTHER (Plaintiff) V/S RASHID AHMED & ORS. (Defendant)

Sindh High Court2012

Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)

Share on WhatsApp
1512/2009 Suit MOBIN RAFIQUE & OTHER (Plaintiff) V/S RASHID AHMED & ORS. (Defendant) Sindh High Court Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author) Order Date: 26-JUN-12 The reasons that I have highlighted the occasions and circumstances ibid where a Receiver could be appointed is because I have gone through the entire affidavit filed in support of the application for appointment of Receiver and in none of the paragraphs the apprehension that the property would be wasted or it is in danger of being wasted was shown. The affidavit discloses that both the business concerns were in control, custody and possession of the defendants No.1 to 3 since the death of father i.e. 2005. It is also mentioned that the profits and income received from these business concerns were being collected and consumed and retained by defendants No.1 to 3 without sharing the same with the plaintiffs or other legal heirs. It has also been disclosed that the defendants are trying to sell the property in question, of course they mean the movable property (as immovable property is on rent) and they urged that they are entitled for their share out of the business income. However, they have not disclosed a single ground whereby this Court could exercise and invoke powers to appoint Receiver. Admittedly the business was being run by defendants No.1, 2 and 3 since 2005 and for reasons mentioned above it is sufficient to hold that the solvent grounds which could attract the provisions of Order XL rule 1 CPC are not available though apparently it seems that the plaintiffs rights and interests as far as their share in the business is concerned is being denied but certainly this alone is not sufficient to invoke the powers under Order XL rule 1 CPC which is a very harsh remedy which is to be used sparingly. The plaintiffs here alleges only exclusion and not waste or malversation. Even apprehension of mismanagement or misappropriation alone would not be sufficient to call for appointment of a Receiver, which is not the case of the plaintiffs
Full judgment text for this case is not yet available on Pakistan Law Reports. Check the official Sindh High Court case law portal for the complete order.
This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error, let us know.

Related judgments

Red Notices against Foreign National Proclaimed Offender

PLJ 2024 Karachi 138 (DB) · Sindh High Court · 2024

Judgment on Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act 2012

PLJ 2023 Karachi 124 (DB) · Sindh High Court · 2023

Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act 2013 explained in a Judgment

PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 154 · Sindh High Court · 2022

Article 140- Cross Examination of a Witness

PLJ 2020 · Sindh High Court · 2020

Re-Examination is more important than Examination in Chief

PLJ 2020 · Sindh High Court · 2020