1968 SCMR 550 (PLP)
HAFIZUR RAHMAN-Petitioner Versus DR. HABIBUR RAHMAN AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 550 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Fazle-Akbar, J |
| Parties | HAFIZUR RAHMAN-Petitioner Versus DR. HABIBUR RAHMAN AND OTHERS-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 550 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 550 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Fazle-Akbar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 550 (PLP) (HAFIZUR RAHMAN-Petitioner Versus DR. HABIBUR RAHMAN AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Arif, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. Aziz M. Dastgir, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the lath December 1967, in Civil Misc. Application No. 1823 of 1967/Civil Revision Application No. 216 of 1967). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XL-Appointment of Receiver-Special Leave to Appeal against order-Refused.
Judgment & Decree
CORNELIUS, C. J.-The dispute in this case concerns a firm Messrs A. R. Khan & Sons, which is alleged to have been owned by one Mr. A. Rahman Khan, now deceased, the contesting parties being his sons and daughters. One of the sons Dr. Habibur Rahman Khan brought suit, principally against two of his brothers Hafizur Rahman and Azizur Rahman, joining his other brothers and sisters as respondents, with the object of having it declared that he was a partner in the aforesaid firm, for the taking of accounts, etc., and at the same time asked for appointment of a Receiver. The trial court appointed a Receiver, but on appeal, the District Judge set this order aside, holding it was not "a fit case where a Receiver should be appointed". On revision, moved by Dr. Habibur Rahman, a learned Single Judge in the High Court, restored with modifications a part of the order of the trial Court, by directing that monthly accounts of the firm should be filed (but in the High Court) covering a certain period and thereafter quarterly. The trial Court's order appointing Hafizur Rahman as Receiver was not restored. Leave to appeal against this order is sought, the principal ground being one that is challenged by the plaintiff viz., that the firm was reconstituted after the death of Mr. A. Rahman Kbaa and is a new firm. The order of the High Court directing sub-4 mission of accounts is clearly one in aid of the dispensation of justice in the suit. It is incorrect to suggest that this order places the operations of the firm under the control of the plaintiff, or the Court. So long as substantially correct accounts are furnished the petitioner need fear no interference. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.