Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 2235 2011 SLD 2235 2011 PLD 151
Sindh High Court
High Court Civil Appeal No. 264 and C.M.As. Nos. 8588, 7334 in Civil Suit No. 1090 of 2010, decided on 28th February, 2011
MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JJ
Zubaida K. Jamali for Appellants. Rasheed A. Razvi and Haq Nawaz Talpur for
Respondent No. 1. Nemo for the Remaining
Respondents.

ASADULLAH MIRBAHAR and another

VS

Mrs. AYESHA MUZAHIR through Attorney and 9 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXXIX, Rr. 1, 2 & O. XL, R. 1---Interim injunction and appointment of receiver--Object and scope---Relief granted by appointment of receiver pendente lite bears in many respects 'a close analogy to that by temporary injunction---Both provisions are essentially preventive in their nature being properly used only for prevention of future injury rather than for the redress of past grievances---Both have one common object insofar as they seek to preserve the res or subject-matter of litigation unimpaired, to be disposed of in accordance with future decree or order of Court. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XL, R. 1--Receiver---Status---Receiver appointed under O. XL, R. 1 C.P.C. is ordinarily an impartial and indifferent person between parties to a cause, appointed by Court to receive and preserve property in litigation---Receiver is officer of Court through whom equity takes possession of property, preserves it from waste and destruction, secures and collects proceeds and ultimately disposes them of according to rights and priorities of those entitled thereto. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XL, R. 1---Sindh Government Land (Cancellation of Allotments, Conversion and Exchange) Ordinance (III of 2001), S. 4(2)---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54---Receiver, appointment of--Administration of justice---Preserving of property---Restraining order, violation of---Plaintiff claimed to be owner in possession of suit land and her grievance was that defendants were bent upon to dispossess her--Trial Court initially only passed injunction order but defendants dispossessed the plaintiff and were continuously raising construction in spite of restraining order, therefore, Trial Court appointed receiver to protect the property from encroachment and land grabbers---Validity---Effect of appointment of receiver by Trial Court was not to prejudice the case of any party but the only object was to maintain the situation intact during pendency of the suit---Controversy between parties and their rights to land in question could only be decided or finally determined after leading evidence by…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492