1974 SCMR 54 (PLP)

(2) 150000 shares of the Standard Insurance Co. Ltd. of face value of Rs.15,00,000 alongwith Transfer Deed duly verified. (3) Agreement for sale of Wood Street plot by Standard Investments Ltd. to A. R. K. Industrial Managements Ltd. (4) Letter of Attornment to six tenants of Wood Street plot in favour of A. R. K. Industrial Managements Ltd. (5) Shares of Sima Laboratories of total face value of Rs. 2,50,000 alongwith Transfer Deeds duly verified. (6) Six Receipts, all dated 6‑7‑1970, issued by Secretary, Standard Bank Ltd., in token of deposit of shares of Standard Bank Ltd. (7) Letter of resignation on behalf of the plaintiff tendering resignation as Chairman and Director of Standard Bank Ltd. (8) Letter signed by the plaintiff tendering resignation as Chairman of the Standard Insurance Co. The High Court refused this application as it transpired that "admittedly the major portion of the shares stand in the name of the persons other than the parties in this suit". Apart from this, it appears that it was also admitted on behalf of the plaintiff (petitioner) in the High Court that the "shares delivered to the defendant did not stand in his (plaintiff's) name". With regard to the immovable properties also it transpired that admittedly the properties stood in the names of persons other than the plaintiff. The High Court was, therefore, of the opinion that unless and until the petitioner could establish his title to the property, he was not entitled to ask for the, receiver to be appointed. The Court, however, took steps to safeguard the interests of the petitioner during the pendency of the suit by directing the defendant not to utilise the shares in any manner except under the directions of the Court and prohibited the defendant from registering any transfer in regard to these shares in the books of the Company concerned without prior permission of the Court. The application for injunction, it appears, was not seriously pressed with regard to items 6, 7 and 8 of the properties already mentioned. It was, however, pressed with regard to item 3 and the immovable property at Lahore, standing in the name of the son of the defendant. In this case, the Court accepted an undertaking given by the defendant in his counter‑affidavit that during the pendency of the suit, he would not do any act which alters the status of this property as to its ownership until further orders of the Court. With regard to the prayer for attachment of certain godowns situated in Lahore, standing in the name of the son of the defendant, the prayer was refused because the property was outside the jurisdiction of the Court and stood in the name of a person who was not a party to the suit. The application for committal of the defendant for contempt was also refused because the allegation was only of a vague nature and apart from the ipse dixit of the plaintiff, there was no other evidence to show that any attempt had been made to deal with the property despite the order of the Court for the maintenance of the status quo. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal and the same arguments have been canvassed before us in support of this petition as were urged in the High Court. It is unnecessary to recount them all over again. It is sufficient to point out that in the circumstances mentioned, the plaintiff was clearly not entitled to either of the prayers made by him in the High Court.4 as none of the properties stood in his name. His title to the properties was disputed and, therefore, until the dispute was decided he could not ask for a receiver to be appointed and the person bona fide in possession deprived of the properties. The very fact that in his plaint itself, the petitioner made an alternative prayer for a decree in terms of money showed that he himself was not certain as to whether he had clear title to these properties. _ In the circumstances it does not lie in his mouth to say that he has made out a prima facie title which alone could entitle him to be ~ appointed as a receiver of these properties. The High Court has taken a sympathetic view and done the best it could do in the circumstance to protect the interests of the petitioner. No just exception can be taken to the order of the High Court. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.