1972 PLP 73 (SCMR)
MRS. MEHAR SULTAN JUNG‑Petitioner Versus QURBAN HUSSAIN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1972 PLP 73 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MRS. MEHAR SULTAN JUNG‑Petitioner Versus QURBAN HUSSAIN‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1972 PLP 73 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1972 PLP 73 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1972 PLP 73 (SCMR) (MRS. MEHAR SULTAN JUNG‑Petitioner Versus QURBAN HUSSAIN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nathulal J. Bhambani, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Muzafar Hassan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 15th February 1972.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, dated the 24th August 1971, in L. P. A. No. 117 of 1971). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 151 & O. XL, r. 1 Code providing procedure for a particular purpose‑Provision of S. 151‑not available in such circumstance‑Appointment of Receiver- Person refusing to file application under O. XL, r. 1‑Cannot seek direction., under S. 151, that Nazir of Court be asked to look after property in dispute and collect occupational charges from persons in possession.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing : 15th February 1972. JUDUMENT SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑This petition for leave is from an order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, dismissing the petitioner's application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the 10th February 1971, the petitioner had filed an application foe the appointment of a Receiver of the property in dispute and it was disposed of by consent order on 7th of May 1971, whereby the disputed property was attached. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under section 151, Cr. P. C. for a direction that the Nazir of the High Court be asked to collect the occupational charges from the persons in possession of the property in dispute and to look after the property. Evidently this direction could not be given unless the Nazir had been first appointed as the Receiver. The petitioner, however, was not prepared to make an application for the appointment of Receiver. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the petitioner could only obtain the relief asked for under Order XL, rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure and he accordingly dismissed the petitioner's application. The petitioner's Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of the High Court. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court. The petitioner may pursue her remedy under the appro priate provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is well settled that where the Code has provided for a particular proce dure the provision of section 151 of the Code is not available. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.