1989 PLP 19 (MLD)

Karamat Nazir Bhandari for Respondent No.

1. Respondent No. 2 in person. Date of hearing: 5th October, 1988. FA.Os. NOS. 154 to 161 of 1988 arising out of the orders of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, dated the 9th July, 1988, dismissing the appellants applications objecting to the attachment of money lying with the Pakistan Railways in execution of money decrees secured by respondent 1 against respondent 2, involve common question for determination and, therefore, are intended to be disposed of together by this order. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of these appeals may be shortly stated. Muhammad Rafiq, Judgment-debtor, respondent 2, was carrying on business under the name and style of S.M. Rafiq & Sons. The Pakistan Railways awarded contract and issued purchase order on the 7th March, 1986 to S.M., Rafiq & Sons, of which respondent 2 was the sole proprietor,' for the supply of carriage electric fans. Till date S.M. Rafiq & Sons, being the sole proprietorship of respondent 2, is the contractor so far as the Pakistan Railways is concerned.

2. On the 4th September, 1986 respondent 2 is said to have entered into partnership business with the appellants. They called the firm they formed S.M. Rafiq & Sons. The accounts of the firm was opened with the Allied Bank of Pakistan, Daroghawala Branch, Lahore. The account is still operative...

3. Respondent 1 in each of the appeals secured eight money decrees against respondent

2. In execution of those decrees respondent 1 got attached respondent 2's money lying with Pakistan Railways. The attached amount was payable by the Railways Department to S.M. Rafiq & Sons in respect of the goods supplied by the later under the contract referred to above. Needless to reiterate respondent 2 was the sole proprietor of the aforesaid S.M. Rafiq & Sons.

4. The appellants objected to the attachment of money on the ground that money belonged to the firm S.M. Rafiq & Sons which had come into existence with the participation of the appellants and respondent

2. Respondent 1 opposed the objection petitions. The learned Executing Court of the Additional District Judge, Lahore, was not prepared to accept the appellant's contention of forming of the firm and, therefore, dismissed the petition.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants states that the firm S.M. Rafiq & Sons formed by the appellants and respondent 2 was not registered and neither it was nor it could be said to be a contractor for the supply of goods to Pakistan A Railways. In actuality it was the business concern S.M. Rafiq and Sons, of which respondent 2 was the sole proprietor, which was contractor of Pakistan Railways and whose money was lying with the Pakistan Railways which money was attached. The attached amount does not belong to the firm S. M. Rafiq & Sons of which the appellants and respondents 2 are alleged to be partners. Even if the formation of the firm is granted the attached money would not become the property of the firm. As the money belongs to respondent 2 it can be recovered in execution of the decrees against him and any objection of the appellants or of the firm set up by the appellants and respondent 2 cannot prevail. The appeals are without any force and are dismissed with costs. M.Z.S./R-71-L Appeals dismissed.