1988 PLP 2195 (CLC)

This revision application under section 115, C.P.C. is filed by the applicant/ plaintiff against the orders of Courts below whereby appointment of Receiver was refused by the Courts on an application under Order XL, Rule 1, C.P.C. filed by the applicant during pendency of the suit. The plaintiff /applicant instituted Suit No. 113 of 1979 for declaration, accounts, mesne profits, partition and permanent injunction on the allegations that the properties shown in the schedules attached with the plaint were inherited by the plaintiff /applicant and defendants/ respondents jointly on the demise of Haji Lakhadino Sarejo, the predecessor‑in‑title of the parties. It was alleged that the property is in possession of the defendants who are mismanaging and misappropriating the same and on these allegations appointment of Receiver was sought. It appears that the defendants took the plea before the trial Court in reply to the above application that the deceased during his lifetime had settled the question of inheritance and in satisfaction of the expected claim of the plaintiff /applicant the deceased gave him a property worth about Rs.10 lacs at Karachi. It was also found by the Courts below that no actual act of waste was proved by the plaintiff which could entitle the plaintiff to the appointment of Receiver in the case. From the orders of the Courts below it is quite clear that in so far the claim of the applicant with regard to the inheritance in the property of the deceased was concerned it was disputed by the respondents on the ground that the deceased had settled the question of inheritance during his lifetime. The inheritance opened in favour of plaintiff /applicant and the respondents only on the demise of Haji Lakhadino Sarejo and therefore, if there was any settlement in this behalf amongst various heirs of the deceased it could be binding only if they agreed to same after the demise of Haji Lakhadino Sarejo. It is not disputed before me that the applicant did not admit any such arrangement and in such circumstances, it is highly doubtful that such arrangement could come in the way of applicant. The trial Court keeping in view the above circumstances should have passed an equitable order while refusing to appoint Receiver, as the applicant had failed to establish specific instances of waste. In my view in such circumstances an order directing the respondents to file regular accounts in respect of disputed property could appropriately serve the interest of justice. I accordingly accept this revision application and modify the orders of the Courts below to the extent that the defendants/ respondents shall file quarterly accounts with the Nazir of the District Court in respect of all the income and expenditures with regard to the properties standing in the name of the deceased and which are under their control. Copies of such account shall also be supplied to the plaintiff /applicant who will be entitled to examine the same and if after examining such account the plaintiff /applicant found that there is any act which amounts to waste of property of the deceased it will be open to him to file fresh application for appointment of Receiver on such ground. As the respondents have not appeared there will be no order as to costs. The revision application is disposed of in terms of above order. Learned counsel for the applicant prayed that as the suit was instituted in the year 1979 the trial Court may be directed to dispose of the case expeditiously. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case the prayer made by Mr. Nasrullah Awan is reasonable. The trial Court will. make every effort to dispose of this case within six months on receipt of R&P. H.B.T./M‑515/K Order accordingly.