1644/2013 Suit Sheikh Muhammad Javaid (Plaintiff) V/S Sartaj Saqlain and others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 17-FEB-18
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 17 & 79---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 113 & S. 22---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, R. 10---Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 290 & 309---Suit for specific performance of contract---Impleadment of party during pendency of suit---Limitation, commencement of---Agreement to sell by the Directors of a private limited company---Effect---Document---Proof---Procedure---Private limited company was impleaded as one of the defendants during pendency of suit on 07-09-2015---Suit against the said defendant was to be deemed to have been instituted from the date when company was impleaded as defendant---Plaintiff had stated in the plaint that cause of action had accrued on 26-08-2011---Present suit was time barred against newly impleaded defendant private limited company---Remaining defendants were not owners of the suit property---Suit to compel the said defendants to execute sale in favour of plaintiff was not maintainable---Plaintiff was bound to prove execution of agreement to sell with the lawful owner of suit property---Alleged agreement to sell was not executed by the company or any duly authorized person by the company in accordance with law---Managing Directors of a company had to act on the basis of authorization by the Board of Directors of company or on the basis of its Articles of Association---Even plaint/suit on behalf of a company could not be filed by the Director of a company for its benefit without proper authorization---Nothing was on record with regard to any meeting of the company to propose sale of its property---Even sale consideration was not paid to the company---Immovable property owned by a private limited company could not be sold by its Director---Suit property remained to be the property of company in the record of Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan---Documents including alleged agreement to sell appeared to be forged and fabricated---Even legal heirs of Director of company could not step into the shoes of Director on his/her death to deal with the assets of a private limited company---Suit property belonged to a private limited company and possession of plaintiff on the suit property was result of fraud and mismanagement of the assets of private limited company---Plaintiff had not produced any of the marginal witnesses of agreement to sell and payment receipts---Photocopy of document was inadmissible in evidence---Business of registered company was to be transacted through Bank account held by the said company---Any transaction by or between the third party with any person who was even Director of company could not be treated as transaction binding on the company itself---Plaintiff had failed to establish contract with the lawful owner of suit property---Plaintiff had made attempt to misuse the process of court on the basis of forged documents---Court was bound to protect such immovable property owned by the company---Company had abandoned its business and its property should be dealt with in accordance with law---Suit property could only be protected or disposed of by winding-up of the company for the benefits of its affectees, if any---Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan was directed to initiate proceedings against the company and wind-up the same---Nazir of the High Court was directed to inspect the suit property and take over possession of entire suit property till final order by the Court---Member Inspection Team was directed to examine affidavit filed by the plaintiff in his examination-in-chief on oath and file a complaint against him if any case was made out---Suit was dismissed in circumstances. Bashir Dawood v. Haji Suleman Goawala and Sons Ltd. and others 2010 CLC 191 rel.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.