1644/2013 Suit Sheikh Muhammad Javaid (Plaintiff) V/S Sartaj Saqlain and others (Defendant)

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.