1992CLC1639 (PLP)

‑‑‑‑O.XL, R.1‑‑‑Appointment of receiver‑‑‑Plaintiffs claimed to be heirs of deceased partner of firm which was being run by defendant‑‑‑Death of deceased partner was disputed and defendant's plea that such partner had retired from business and that he had divorced his wife, one of plaintiffs, was also in dispute‑‑‑Other plaintiff was, however, admitted to be daughter of such partner whose interest had to be safeguarded‑‑‑Defendant who was already running business of firm was directed to continue with business but would have to file in Court statement of account after every three months. Mokarim, Sheikh F.M. Javad and Abul Khair (on Court call). Date of hearing: 8th May, 1986. . This is an application under Order 40, Rule 1, C.P.C. for appointment of receiver of the properties mentioned in the paragraph 5 of the plaint alleged to be the properties in which one Muhammad Sohail Qureshi said to have died had share. This is a suit for administration and rendition of accounts. It is alleged that one Muhammad Sohail Qureshi the husband of the plaintiff No.l and father of plaintiff No.2 died at Bombay. The information about the death of Muhammad Sohail Qureshi was communicated by a person from Bombay by a letter dated 15‑12‑1985 stating that Muhammad Sohail Qureshi expired in 3rd December 1985 and as a friend he was communicating this information. Except this letter there is no other document to prove the death of Muhammad Sohail Qureshi. The defendant denied that Muhammad Sohail Qureshi has died. The defendant No.] has filed counter‑affidavit and factum of Sohail's death has been denied. It has been alleged that the plaintiff No.l was divorced by Muhammad Sohail Qureshi on 24‑11‑1984. The plaintiff No.l admits the receipt of divorce deed on 14‑4‑1985 and has taken the plea that no notice was given to the Chairman of the Union Council and the divorce has not been confirmed. On, the other hand the defendants contended that notice was duly served on the Chairman of the Union Council and a copy was also received by the plaintiff No.l. There seems to the serious controversy about the death of Muhammad Sohail Qureshi and the divorce. So far as the properties are concerned the defendant No.1 admits that Pakistan Auto Traders was a partnership firm in which Muhammad Sohail Qureshi was a partner. From the certificate issued by the Registrar of Firms it seems that on 1‑7‑1985 an entry was made that Muhammad Sohail Qureshi and Hafeez Qureshi have retired from the firm with effect from 3‑7‑1984. The defendants have not filed deed of dissolution or retirement. However, it would have been filed with the Registrar of the Firm but presently it is not possible to ascertain whether it was executed by Sohail Qureshi. In respect of the Asif Enterprises, from the Registrar's certificate it seems that Muhammad Sohail Qureshi retired on 28‑6‑1984. In this case also the deed of dissolution /retirement has not been produced. Qureshi Brothers Karachi is stated by the defendant No.l to be his proprietary concern. In Qureshi Brothers Multan, Muhammad Sohail Qureshi was not a partner. House No.1558/3 Mohalla Jatoo Shah Hussain Agahi, Multan is admitted to be the property of the father of the defendants and Sohail Qureshi. According to the defendant No.1 after the death of the father this property even today is in his name and has not been mutated in the name of the legal heirs. So far the industrial plot is concerned the defendants state that they are not aware of any such plot. House No.B‑147, Block No.6, Gulshan‑e‑lqbal, Karachi was purchased by defendant No.l under a conveyance deed dated 21 9‑1985. Therefore except the two properties listed at serial No. `a' and `b' and the house at Multan there does not seem to be any valid document to show that Muhammad Sohail Qureshi had any share in these properties. The admitted position is that the plaintiff No.2 is a daughter of Muhammad Sohail Qureshi. f n the wake of controversy between the parties it will have to be determined whether Muhammad Sohail Qureshi had retired from the firms listed at `a' and `b' in paragraph 5 of the plaint. The business of these firms is being run by the defendant No.l. The death of Sohail Qureshi is disputed and the divorce is not admitted. These questions can be resolved after evidence has been recorded. It would therefore be lust and proper that the interest of the plaintiffs if any, particularly the interest of plaintiff No.2 should be safeguarded. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the defendant No.1 is directed to continue with the business of these firms but he will have to tile in Court statement of account after every three months. A. N‑416/K???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order Accordingly