1974 PLP 14 (SCMR)

Yousaf Rafi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing : 7th September 1973. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from certain orders passed on certain interlocutory applications made in the course of winding up of the respondent‑company by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan. The petitioner claimed that he was actually an owner of 10,000 shares of the face value of Rs. 10 lacs and, therefore, asked in the course of the winding up for the appointment of an interim receiver and/or a provisional liquidator on the ground that although he had the controlling shares in the company, he had been excluded from its management. He also asked that the company be restrained from evicting him from certain premises belonging to the company which he was occupying at Lala Musa as the Managing Director of the company. His appointment as Managing Director of the company came to an end by operation of law under the provisions of the President's Order No. 2 of 1972. The learned Judge in the High Court refused these prayers. He accordingly came up to this Court for special leave to appeal and got an ad interim order on the 12th of December 1972, for the maintenance of the status quo as to the possession of the house in dispute till the decision of the petition for special leave. But, when the petition came up for hearing on the 27th of February 1973, an adjournment was obtained on the ground that the parties were compromising the dispute and the petition for winding up was directed to come up for hearing during the course of this session. The interim order passed on the 12th of December 1972, was also vacated. Even now a petition has again been put in saying that some details of the compromise still remain to be negotiated with the parties, therefore, there should be a further adjournment, particularly, since Mr. Manzur Qadir, who is appearing for the petitioner, cannot be contacted due to breakdown of telephonic communication between Karachi and Lahore. As against this, the learned Advocate‑on‑Record for the respondent has filed photostat copies of the order of the High Court showing that since the petitioner had sold his entire share holdings in the aforesaid company to the rival group, the petition for winding up may be allowed to be withdrawn. This was consented to by the learned Advocate for the petitioner before the High Court and the learned Chief Justice of the High Court, on the 23rd of February 1973, allowed the petition for winding to be withdrawn. In these circumstances the present petition has now become wholly infructuous. The petitioner appearing in person, however, states that a review petition has since been filed against the order withdrawing the winding up petition Even if this be correct this petition has become infructuous and no useful purpose will be served by keeping it pending any longer. The house has also since been vacated and the company has taken possession of it though the petitioner alleges that the company took forcible possession. The prayer for adjournment is accordingly refused and this petition is dismissed as baying become infructuous. Petition dismissed.