Multiple claims

2024 CLC 1896 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.12, 42 & 54Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XL, R.1Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell, declaration, injunction and recovery of damagesReceiver, appointment ofPrincipleMultiple claimsCreating third party claimsApplication for appointment of receiver was filed to secure the status of suit propertyValidityRegistered title to suit property was admitted and despite such factum the party remained dispossessed therefrom

No rights / title had crystallized in favor of another party who not only gained possession of suit property but prima facie had created unjustifiable third party interests therein

There were three conflicting claims to suit property and it was imperative for the lis to be preserved pending adjudication of respective claims

Purported tenants had notice of proceedings who opted to refrain from presenting their case

There was no arguable sanction for possession of suit property by the party creating interest of tenants

Prima facie defendants' collution to deprive plaintiff of his property was borne from record and the conduct of relevant parties

Suit property was in imminent danger of possibly irreparable dissipation through creation of further third party interests

High Court appointed the receiver of suit property with the direction that same shall remain in his exclusive possession and custody

High Court directed the receiver to cause suit property to be vacated and in such regard could obtain assistance of any law enforcement agency / regulatory body deemed expedient

High Court further directed that vacated suit property would be sealed pending further orders of High Court

Application was allowed accordingly.

2014 CLD 440 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 9Banking CourtJurisdictionMultiple claimsScope

Plaintiff company filed suit against bank which included different claims depending upon contractual liabilities and tortuous acts

Validity

Only those issues could be solved under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, which were between customers and financial institutions in respect of finance and that too on the ground that any obligation had not been fulfilled

Only two claims could be tried under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, whereas rest of the claims could not be entertained before Banking Court

High Court deleted the claims from plaint which were not maintainable under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Suit filed by plaintiff was maintainable accordingly.