1986 PLP 325 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.

‑ The appellant has called into question the order made by the Hon'ble Single Judge on 27‑3‑1984 dismissing the application for receiver made by Mst. Tasneem Bano in Civil Suit No.108 of 1982, which had been filed by Shaikh Najmul Arfin. The relevant facts are that the suit in question was filed for declaration to the effect that the alleged gift made by Muhammad Sabireen in favour of Mst. Akhtar Sultana and the alleged confirmation deed were forged and of no effect. No other relief in that suit had been prayed for except the general prayer for consequential relief. The suit is still pending and the injunction had been granted against the respondent No.1 restraining her from transferring the property to any person during the pendency of this application. It has come on record in the suit that the house in question had been rented out by the respondent No.1 to three tenants, from whom she is charging Rs.3,500 in all per month. The appellant had sought the appointment of receiver under Order XL, Rule 1, C . P. C . on the ground that it would be difficult for the plaintiff or the present appellant to recover their share of rent, which the present respondent No.1 is charging from her tenants. There was no allegation of any waste or damage being caused to the property. The Hon'ble Single Judge did not grant relief of receivership one the ground that no other relief in the suit had been prayed for except the declaration in respect of the gift deed. We have heard Mr. Akhlaque Ahmed Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rehmat Elahi learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Najmul Arfeen, respondent No.6. We are of the view that the impugned order is quite justified in the circumstances of this case. The plaintiff had not even asked for the rendition of the accounts in the matter and nor there was an prayer for division of the property and in these circumstances the view of the learned Single Judge that there was no justification for receiver was correct. We are further of the view that since injunction against transfer of the property has been granted against the respondent No.1, therefore, the interest of the appellant and the respondent No.6 has been fully safeguarded inasmuch as the respondent No. l is admittedly entitled to I of the property, even if the gift deed was eventually found to be ineffective and therefore, she has substantial interest in the property, which could satisfy the claims of the appellant and the respondent No.6. In this view of the matter, this appeal is found to be without any merit and is hereby dismissed. We would, however, observe that the observations made by the Hon'ble Single Judge in the impugned order would not be of a binding nature at the time of the disposal of the suit. M.Y.H Appeal dismissed.