1989 PLP 528 (SCMR)

ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a Division Bench of Sind High Court dated 22‑3‑1987 dismissing an appeal filed by appellants, and thereby upholding the order of learned Single Judge of Sind High Court dated 2‑2‑1987 directing appointment of a receiver of the suit‑property which consists of 20 shops of Haseena Cloth and Gole Markets, Liaquatabad, Karachi. Learned Single Judge passed that order on an application of the plaintiffs Izzat Khan and Haseena Begum, (respondents 1 and 2 herein) in Suit No372 of 1983 for declaration, rendition of account and cancellation of lease of the suit‑property by Karachi Municipal Corporation, Defendant‑3 (respondent‑3 herein) in favour of Defendant‑4 (petitioner herein). It was asserted in the plaint that Haseena Begum had occupied an area of 300 sq yards situated in commercial area, Lalukhet (Liaquatabad) which was allotted in her name on 8‑12‑1984 and possession was also regularised in her favour. Afterwards Haseena Begum constructed 72 shops, including the 20 shops, the suit‑property. The suit‑property was then sold by her to Izzat Khan plaintiff by an agreement dated 14‑7‑1965 and the possession thereof was handed over to him. Thereafter, Haseena Begum used to pay rent to Izzat Khan and executed a formal agreement in this behalf. It is further alleged that Haseena Begum had appointed Ramzan Khan predecessor‑in‑title of the petitioners as attorney to look after the said Markets and he also used to pay rent to Izzat Khan. In 1964, Karachi Municipal Corporation, respondent 3 herein, issued notice to Haseena Begum that the construction of the said market was unauthorised and it was to be demolished. In the circumstances, Haseena Begum filed Suit No.321 of 1964 in which Ramzan Khan appeared as her attorney. Later on, however Ramzan Khan filed another suit, being Suit No.424 of 1974 against Haseena Begum for declaration that he was the real beneficiary owner of the property, and later on, it seems, that Karachi Municipal Corporation granted to him lease of some area, including the area covered by the 20 shops in question. However, this lease was afterwards cancelled by Karachi Municipal Corporation. It was on these facts and circumstances that the plaintiffs, Izzat Khan and Haseena Begum, prayed that a Receiver of the suit‑property may be appointed by the Court. Learned Single Judge of the High Court was of a view that since the lease in favour of Ramzan Khan was cancelled, he had no title, and therefore, a prima facie case for appointment of a Receiver was made out and he passed the order dated 2‑2‑1987 accordingly. This order was upheld by learned Judges of the Division Bench in view of the admitted position Ramzan Khan had acted as an attorney of Mst. Haseena Begum and in his capacity as an agent he cannot be allowed to set up a title adverse to her. After having heard Mr. Sami‑ud‑Din Sami, learned counsel for the petitioners in the light of the record before us we are clearly of the view that the impugned order passed in discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court does not merit interference either on the facts of the case or on any account of any error of law. The petition is therefore dismissed. M.A.K./I‑54/S???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????? Petition dismissed.