Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 775 2020 SLD 775 2020 CLC 768
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 11256 of 2019, hearing Date : 12-11-2019
CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD, JAHANGIR, JUSTICE
Syed Muhammad Kaleem Ahmed Khursheed for
Respondent No.1. Mustafa Haroon for
Respondent No.2.

MUHAMMAD SUMAK MALIK AND ANOTHERS

VS

MUHAMMAD ASIF KHAN AND 3 OTHERS

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O,XL,1

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XL, R. 1---Receiver, appointment of---Object, purpose and scope---Custodia legis, principle of---On appointment of receiver by court, property comes into custody of court and passes into legal custody (Custodia legis)--- Main object behind appointment of receiver is to preserve suit property and safeguard interest of true owner--- No doubt receiver is appointed to receive and preserve property or fund in litigation (pendente lite) when it does not seem reasonable to court that either party should hold it or where party is incompetent to do so--- Appointment of receiver is not to be made to prejudice case of either party in anyway--- Discretion is rested with court to make such appointment or not; it has to be exercised judiciously by following norms of justice, so as to protect rights of parties. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XL, R.1---Receiver, appointment of---Prerequisites--- Remedy provided in terms of O.XL, R.1, C.P.C. by its very nature is onerous which is to be exercised providently. Muhammad Usman v. Muhammad Shahbaz and 7 others 2007 MLD 1121 rel. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 39, 42 & 54--- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVIII, R.5, O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2, O.XL, R.1 & O.XLI, R.1---Suit for declaration, injunction, cancellation of document and recovery of money--- Appointment of receiver--- Attachment of property--- Plaintiff filed application for appointment of receiver and attachment of property before regarding suit property---Applications were allowed by Trial Court and order was maintained by Lower Appellate Court---Validity---Trial Court could not to appoint receiver so as to oust defendants from use, command and control, particularly when plaintiff had already assessed his reparable loss in terms of specific amount--- Relief granted under order XXXVIII, R.5, C.P.C. or O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2, C.P.C. bore a similar analogy to that of appointment of receiver--- O. XXXVIII, R.5, C.P.C. or O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C. were essentially preventive in nature having common object insofar as they required to preserve subject matter till final disposal of…
🔒
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