1989 PLP 4336 (MLD)

Case to proceed ex parte against defendants Nos.6 to 8.

2. The plaintiff has made this application for injunction under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 read with section 151, C.P.C. praying for the temporary injunction restraining the defendants Nos.1 to 8 from selling, transferring, alienating disposing of, encumbering, leasing or parting with the possession of the properties, namely, Plot No.H/1, S.I.T.E., Kotri, admeasuring 25 acres, together with plant, equipment, machinery, fixtures and fittings belonging to M/s. A1- Ameen Textile Mills Ltd. (defendant No.1) pending the hearing and final disposal '' of the suit. When this suit came up before this Court on 29-9-1986, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the affidavits filed by them in support of their respective pleas and stand in the case. I find that in the counter affidavit filed by the defendant only an classic reply has been made to the specific allegations made with regard to their intention of selling, disposing of and transferring the above noted property, by saying that the allegations made by the plaintiff in para 6 of their affidavit arc devoid of any logic and hence denied. A perusal of the said affidavit filed in support of this application, as already pointed out clearly shows that it specifically makes a mention that' the plaintiffs have learnt through reliable sources that the defendants are intending to sell, transfer, dispose of, alienate the said properties with a view to defrauding the plaintiffs/defeating the decree that may be passed in the above suit'. The only other argument which could be made by the learned counsel for the defendant in resistance of this application was that the affidavit filed is vague and does not specifically state as to which part of the statement was true to the knowledge and which part of it was based on belief of the defendant. In support of his contention that if the affidavit is verified without disclosing the contents thereof which are true to the knowledge and those which are correct to the belief of the deponent, it is to be held no affidavit in the eye of law. In support of his contention the counsel placed reliance on a ease reported in 1980 C L C 1119. However, I am not influenced by the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant. It was open to the defendant to have denied the facts narrated in the affidavit on the information received by the plaintiff. It is absolutely clear from a perusal of para 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the application that r the information contained therein was the true information received by the plaintiff. Even otherwise looking to the facts and circumstances of the case 1 am of the that it Would be in the interest of justice to grant this application inasmuch as the plaintiff seems to have a prima facie case in its favour and that A the balance of convenience also lies in its favour rather than of it being in favour of the defendant. The ad-interim order of injunction is, therefore, hereby confirmed.

3. By this application under Order 40 rule I read with Order 26 rules 9 and I1 read with sections 75 & 95 r/w section 151 C.P.C. the plaintiff prays for the appointment of the Official Assignee/Nazir of this Court as Receiver of the Defendant No.l with full powers to take possession of the property bearing No.H/1, S.I.T.E. Kotri and the office premises bearing No.506, Muhammadi House, 1.I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi, and the business known and carried on under the name and style of M/s. Al-Ameen Textile Mills Limited including the factory plant, equipment, machinery, vehicles, furniture, fixtures, fittings, receivables/book-debts, goods/stocks etc. pending the hearing and final disposal's of the suit. And it is further prayed that the official Assignee/Nazir of this Court may also be directed to prepare an inventory of all the assets and properties of the defendant No.l lying at the aforesaid premises including a list of receivables/bunk-debts, outstanding claims etc. The defendants have opposed this application by filing the counter-affidavit. Affidavit-in-rejoinder has also Lien flied by and on behalf of the plaintiff. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the application as well as the affidavits filed in respect thereof and I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for appointment of a Receiver. It is stated by the learned counsel for the defendants without being controverted by the leaned counsel for plaintiff, that the business of the defendant company is being run on profitable basis and that proper business is being conducted by the defendants. The plaintiffs, in my opinion, have failed to make out a prima facie case for appointment of a Receiver. The only grievance as I could gather from the arguments made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that the defendant failed to allow the plaintiff's representative to inspect the factory and make an inventory of the hypothecated goods and that the defendants also did not submit the stock report after 31st October, 1981 despite repeated demands of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the parties ultimately however, agreed to the following: "That an officer of the bank named S.M. Mehdi Ali may, with prior intimation to the defendant, inspect the premises and prepare an inventory of all the assets and properties of the defendant No.l lying at the business premises of the defendant including a list of receivables/book-debts, outstanding claims etc." The application thus stands disposed off in the above terms.

4. By consent adjourned to a date in office. H.B.T./B-129/L Order accordingly.