2002 PLP 1306 (SCMR)
Ch. NASEER AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus REHAM DAD and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1306 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C. J., Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Syed Deedar Hussain Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Ch. NASEER AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus REHAM DAD and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1306 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1306 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C. J., Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Syed Deedar Hussain Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1306 (SCMR) (Ch. NASEER AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus REHAM DAD and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents,
- Date of hearing. 5th March, 2002
Headnotes / Summary
. (On appeal from the judgment dated 28‑1‑2002 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Civil Revision No. 1898 of 1995). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O.XL, R.1‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Appointment of receiver‑‑‑Allegation of wasting and damage to property‑‑‑No such allegation was levelled in the plaint against the petitioner who was only receiving rent of the suit property and the respondents were denied their share‑‑‑Contention of the petitioner was that instead of appointment of receiver, direction could be issued to the petitioner to deposit rent already received by him as well as the current rent in the Court and there was no need to appoint a receiver for the purpose‑‑‑Supreme Court issued notice to the respondents in circumstances. Benoy Krishna v. Satish Chandra AIR 1928 PC 49 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the receiver could only be appointed where the allegations are that the property was being wasted and damaged, but in the instant case no such allegations have been made. He referred to a ruling of the Privy Council in case of Benoy Krishna v. Satish Chandra (AIR 1928 PC 49), wherein it has been held as under:‑‑ "On an interim application for receivership such as this, the Court has to consider whether special interference with the possession of a defendant is required, there being a well‑founded fear that the property in question will be dissipated, or that other irreparable mischief may be done unless the Court gives its protection. Such an order is discretionary, and the discretion is, in the first instance, that of the Court in which the 'suit itself is pending. When, as in this case, the order of that Court is altered on appeal it becomes necessary to consider whether the Court below had before it the evidence required to support such an order and considered it in accordance with the principles on which judicial discretion must be exercised. If the Court of review rightly concludes that proper discretion was not used below, it is free to exercise its own discretion in the matter. " The only allegation in the instant case is that the petitioner has been receiving the rent of the shops and the respondents were denied their share. He contended that instead of appointment of the receiver, direction could be issued to the petitioner to deposit rent already received by him as well as the current rent in the Court and there was no need to appoint a receiver for the purpose.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, we deem it proper to issue notice to the other side for a date to be fixed by the first week of April, 2002. Q.M.H./M.A.K./N‑64/S Order accordingly.