2000,M L D 729 (PLP)

7. The learned First Appellate Court was of the view that the documents reflecting a joint purchase of the tractor had not been produced to show that it was a joint property and prima facie the registration of the tractor was in the name of Muhammad Ramzan respondent. The learned First Appellate Court was also of the view that mere apprehension of mismanagement or misappropriation was insufficient for appointment of a receiver and came to the conclusion that the appointment of the receiver was not justified.

8. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was using the tractor for gainful purposes and it will be difficult for him to get true accounts based on profits. In the alternate he said that the respondent may cause damage to the tractor, and thus, a loss to the property of the partnership.

9. The object behind. the appointment of a receiver is to preserve a property during the pendency of litigation and to prevent the ends of the justice from being defeated. In this connection reference may be made to the two provisions of the procedural law. These are Order 40, Rule 7 and section 94 of the C.P.C. These are reproduced below:‑‑ "

1. Appointment of receiver.‑‑‑(1) Where it appears to the Court to be just and convenient, the Court may by order‑‑ (a) appoint a receiver of any property, whether before or after decree; (b) remove any person from the possession or custody of the property; (c) commit the same to the possession, custody or management of the receiver; and (d) confer upon the receiver all such powers, as to bringing and defending suits and for the realization, management, protection, preservation and improvement of the property, the collection of the rents arid profits thereof, the application and disposal of such rents and profits, and the execution of documents as the owner himself has, or such of those powers as the Court thinks fit. (2) Nothing in this rule shall authorise the Court to remove from the possession or custody of property any person whom any party to the suit has n t a present right so to remove." Section

94. C.P.C.: "

94. Supplemental proceedings.‑‑‑In order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated the Court may, if it is so prescribed,‑‑ (a) Issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him before the Court to show cause why he should not give security for his appearance, and if he fails to comply with any order for security commit him to the civil prison; (b) direct the defendant to furnish security to produce any property belonging to him and to place the same at the disposal of the Court or order the attachment of any property; (c) grant a temporary injunction and in case of disobedience commit the person guilty thereof to the civil prison and order that his property be attached and sold; (d) appoint a receiver of any property and enforce the performance of his duties by attaching and selling his property; (e) make such other interlocutory orders as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient." , But the appointment of a recover is the harshest remedy available and, therefore, it has to be sparingly used when there is danger to the property and prevention of wastage is otherwise not possible. However, an applicant has to establish a prima facie title to the property for obtaining the appointment pf a receiver. Besides establishing a prima facie title to the property an applicant for the appointment of a receiver has also to establish before the Court that the appointment of a receiver was just and convenient. While section 94 of the C.P.C. confers a general power upon a Court to take actions as envisaged under section 94 for preventing the ends of justice from being defeated.

10. While the main matter is still sub judice before the trial Court litigation has started on an ancillary matter.

11. It is the story of the petitioner himself that the respondent before this Court was a co‑owner of the tractor. One wonders why will a co‑owners having a share in the property allow his own property to be wasted, destroyed or misused. He certainly with the admitted entitlement to the extent of half share (subject to the final decision of the Court) is a better custodian of the property rather than the S.H.O., Police Station Joharabad who was entrusted this property for purposes of maintenance or custody by the trial Court.

12. The petitioner nourishes fear that the property will be damaged or embezzled or wasted if it remains in the custody of the respondent. In order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated it will be appropriate to direct the respondent to furnish security against half the sale price of the tractor while also undertaking that he will produce the tractor whenever required by the trial Court and further he will neither sell the tractor nor give it on lease to any‑one until the disposal of the lis and, further that he will not allow the property to be wasted or destroyed. The security shall be furnished by the respondent immediately on being summoned by the Trial Court. Consequently, I modify the order impugned accordingly. The bond of security would be furnished by the respondent immediately before the trial Court where the case is being sent for disposal on merits by 30th of October, 1999. The revision petition is, thus, disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./S‑470/L Order accordingly.