2016 PLP 579 (CLD)
LAHORE REGENCY (PRIVATE) LTD. through Managing Director — Appellant Versus WYNDHAM HOTEL and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 579 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | LAHORE REGENCY (PRIVATE) LTD. through Managing Director — Appellant Versus WYNDHAM HOTEL and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 579 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 579 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 579 (CLD) (LAHORE REGENCY (PRIVATE) LTD. through Managing Director — Appellant Versus WYNDHAM HOTEL and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Hassan Ali Raza and Asad Javed for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.
- Hafeez-ur-Rehman Ch. for Respondent No.3.
- Rustam Khan Parhar for Respondent No.4.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XL, R. 1, O. XXXIX, R. 1, 2, O. XXXVII, R. 5 & O. I, R. 10
Attachment of franchise fee before judgment
Execution of decree, mode of
Plaintiff filed suit for damages against defendants, foreign companies, and the other defendants, who were franchise holder of said companies, for loss caused due to violation of Letter of Intent
Trial Court, while declining applications of plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction and attachment of franchise fee, deleted names of defendants, franchise holders, from the suit; revisional court maintained the order of Trial Court
Plaintiff contended that defendants, foreign companies, were doing business abroad and were not maintaining assets in Pakistan, except the franchise fee payable by defendants (franchise holders) which, be attached till pendency of the suit to make recovery of damages possible in case decree was passed
Names of defendants, franchise holder, had already been deleted from array of defendants; thus, case of plaintiff to the extent of attachment of franchise fee before judgment could not proceed
Plaintiff had claimed damages only against defendants, foreign companies
Plaintiff, in case a decree was passed, might file application for execution of decree
Suit having not been decreed restraining order could not be passed on probability
Appeal against order was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD KHALID MAHMOOD KHAN, J.
Through this First Appeal against Order, the appellant has assailed the order dated 13.3.2013 whereby the learned trial' court dismissed the appellant's two applications one under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. and the other under Order XXXVII, Rule 5 and Order XL, Rule 1, C.P.C.
2. The appellant filed a suit for recovery of damages allegedly sustained due to violation of a Letter of Intent dated 01.10.2010 executed between the appellant and respondents Nos.1 and
2. Respondents Nos.3 and 4 have been impleaded as party to the suit being the franchise holders of respondents Nos.1 and
2. The leaned trial court vide order dated 06.3.2012 deleted the names of respondents Nos.3 and 4 from the array of defendants. The revision against the said order has also been dismissed. The petitioner claims that respondents Nos.1 and 2 are the foreign companies doing their business abroad and are not maintaining any assets in Pakistan except the franchise fee payable by respondents Nos.3 and
4. The prayer in application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. is that in case the decree is passed the appellant will not be able to recover the same as respondents Nos.1 and 2 are not doing business in Pakistan. The appellant thus has prayed that in case the decree is passed and the same is not recovered, the appellant will suffer irreparable loss. Through the application under Order XXXVII, Rule 5 and Order XL, Rule 1, C.P.C. the appellant has prayed that the franchise fee payable to respondents Nos.1 and 2 be attached till the pendency of suit.
3. As the respondents Nos.3 and 4 have been deleted from the array of defendants and as such the case of appellant to the extent of attachment before judgment of franchise fee, is no more proceedable. The appellant's suit is a suit for recovery of damages and the damages have been claimed against respondents Nos.1 and 2 only. In case the decree is passed, in that case the appellant may file an application for execution of decree for attachment or execution of decree against the franchise fee. As far as the question of irreparable loss is concerned, the suit has not been decreed so far and on probability the restraining order could not be passed. The appellant has failed to point out any illegality in the impugned order. The appeal thus fails and is dismissed. SL/L-11/L Appeal dismissed.