P L D 1976 Karachi 504 (PLP)

Muhammad Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqui for Respondents. Date of hearing : 26th February 1976. The facts involved in this revision application are as follows :-

2. On the 24th of April 1969, a partnership firm in the name and style of Haji Karim Bux Abdul Ghani came into existence at Sukkur, and was duly registered with the Registrar of Firms. The duration of the partnership was at will. It consisted of four partners. that is, the petitioners here and the respondents No. 1 and No. 2, the latter being represented now by her legal representatives from No. 2 (i) to No. 2 (viii). The business being done was a commission agency in vegetables and fruits. On 21-1-1975, a notice for the dissolution of the firm was given by the petitioner No. 2, that the partner ship would stand dissolved with effect from the 31st March 1975. An intimation to this effect is alleged to have been sent to the Income-tax Authorities and the Registrar of Firms. From 1-4-1975, a new firm came into existence under the name and style of Haji Karim Bux Abdul Hakeem with six partners. It consisted of the two respondents and two sons each of both the respondents.

3. On 30-7-1975, the respondent No. 1 filed a suit in the Civil Court, Sukkur, for the dissolution of the firm, that is, Haji Karim Bux Abdul Ghani end also for rendition of account. The suit was accompanied by an application under Order XXXVIII, rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. In this application, there was an alternate prayer for the appointment of Receiver under Order XL, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Ciyii Judge, the same day, passed an order for the attachment of the premises detailed in the plaint, unless security was furnished in the sum of Rs. 2,00,

000. The security was furnished in the course of the day. In this very context, it might be mentioned that an appeal against this order was filed in the District Court, which came to be dismissed, and a revision application had been filed here, and, at the time of the admission, the order of attachment was stayed, "subject to petitioner's furnishing security in the sum of Rs.25,000 in the District Court." This order is dated 18-11-1975.

4. To pick up the threads, on the 31st of July 1975, the respondent No. 1 moved another application for the appointment of Receiver, and an order was passed thereon on 3-1-1976, appointing Mr. M. Javaid as the Receiver. All the books of accounts of partnership, old and new, were seized and the shop and other properties were sealed. Against this order, an appeal was filed in the District Court, culminating in the impugned order dated 26-1-1976.

5. On the showing of the applicants, the partnership was dissolved on 31-3-1975. Mr. M. Saeeduz Zaman Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondents, raised the contention that the notice was despatched only to the petitioner No. 1, but that will be of no relevance for the purposes of the present revision application, specially in the light of the case put forward by the applicants themselves. Mr. S. A. Nusrat, learned counsel for the applicants, urged that the firf application contained reliefs sought under Order XXXVIII, rule 5 and also under Jrder XL, rule I of the Civil Procedure Code, and that the fact that the order was confined to attachment before judgment would imply that the prayer for the appointment of the Receiver bad been refused. It is not, however, their case that there was any explicit refusal in the order passed. There appears to be no bar in making) a separate application for the appointment of Receiver as well, and it is note necessary to simulate as to why the respondents had chosen to make a prayers for the appointment of Receiver in the alternative in the earlier application. Apparently, there seems to be no bar in the subsequent application, The question to see will, therefore, be as to whether the appointment of the Receiver was just and convenient and in accordance with law. Mr. M. Saeeduz Zaman Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondents, has referred me to the case of All Muhammad Bhai v. Sadruddin (P L D 1959 Kar. 452). It was observed therein that, if the notice of the dissolution of partnership was valid-in this case on the showing of the applicants themselves, the dissolution of partnership had taken place,-the partnership stood dissolved, and the consequence should be the appointment of a Receiver as a matter of course, and further that "in such circumstances delay and obstructions in winding up the partnership business are themselves sufficient to warrant the appointment of a Receiver." He also referred me to the case of Sh. Munir Ahmad v. Muhammad Ismail and 2 others (1971 S C M R 666), wherein leave to appeal was refused when a Receiver was appointed in a quit for the dissolution of partnership. As the impugned orders are not in departure from judicial principles, no exception can be taken to the same. I will, therefore, dismiss the revision application, but with no order as to costs.

6. During the course of the arguments, while the tenor of the judgment was understood by the learned counsel for the parties, on the suggestion of Mr. S. A. Nusrat, Mr. M. Saeeduz Zaman Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondents agreed that the books of account pertaining to Messrs Haji Karim Bux Abdul Hakeem be returned by the Receiver to Abdul Hakeem, or, his nominee. It is ordered accordingly. S. Q. Order accordingly.